Undisclosed Use Imposes a Cost on Readers of Everything Else

Source: jason@calacanis.com. "Disgraziad: The WSJ’s Millie Vanilli Editorial Page." August 29, 2026. jcalfromallin.substack.com

The Gist

Once some bylines might be machine-written, every byline gets cheaper, including the ones that were not.

Conclusion

The objection is not exhausted by whether a particular author was sincere. Even a piece that genuinely reflects its author's long-held views contributes to a general erosion of what a byline can be taken to mean.

Premises

  1. The essay opens by inviting the reader to wonder whether the essay itself was machine written, and the reader cannot resolve the question from the text.
  2. That irresolvable doubt is a cost borne by readers of all attributed writing, not only readers of any particular undisclosed piece.
  3. The doubt is produced by the practice of undisclosed use in aggregate, not by any single instance, which means each undisclosed piece imposes costs on writing it has nothing to do with.
  4. An institution with the standing of a major editorial page ruling the practice acceptable accelerates the aggregate effect, because it removes the reputational cost that was the only restraint.

Assumptions

View this argument on LogicFirst.ai