Sydney academic used AI to write SMH opinion piece urging students to avoid using tech to ‘cut corners’
Western Sydney University says Prof Cath Ellis used AI to draft a Sydney Morning Herald column warning students not to use AI to cut corners. The Herald removed the piece after saying it breached its editorial rules.
Intelligence analysis by GPT-5.4 Mini
The controversy is about whether an academic can use generative AI to help write a column warning others not to rely on it. The university says the use was appropriate and based on her own materials; the paper says it was not told and took the piece down.
A university teacher used a smart computer helper to help write a newspaper article telling students not to take shortcuts with AI. That upset the newspaper, which took the article down because it said it was not told about the AI help.
Analysis
What happened
Western Sydney University’s pro vice-chancellor for quality and integrity, Prof Cath Ellis, wrote an opinion piece for the Sydney Morning Herald responding to concerns that students can use AI to avoid doing their own work. In the column, Ellis argued that the AI problem is real, but still told students not to cut corners or outsource their thinking.
The AI dispute
The twist is that the column itself was produced with AI assistance. The university said Ellis uploaded about 40,000 words of her own original material into Microsoft Copilot, which then summarised her knowledge and helped generate early drafts. The university described that as a sophisticated and appropriate use of generative AI.
The Guardian reports that the article came up as AI-generated when checked with Pangram, an AI-detection service. The Herald later removed the piece. Editor Jordan Baker said the paper had not been informed that AI was used in compiling it and called that unacceptable.
Why it matters
Nine’s policy says AI can be used for initial research and prompt ideas, but it also says AI will not be used to write stories for publication. It adds that if AI-generated material is published, it must be clearly labelled. This case sits in the grey zone between assistance and authorship, which is now a major issue for media organisations, universities, and other institutions trying to set boundaries around generative AI.
The story also lands in a wider climate of anxiety about AI in education and graduate jobs. The article links this case to growing unease among students and journalists about what should be disclosed, what counts as acceptable assistance, and who is responsible when AI is involved.
Key points
- Western Sydney University says Prof Cath Ellis used Copilot with her own source material to draft the column.
- The column warned students not to outsource their thinking or use AI to cut corners.
- The Sydney Morning Herald removed the piece after saying it did not meet editorial guidelines.
- Nine’s policy allows some AI use for research and ideas, but says AI will not be used to write published stories.
- The episode reflects wider anxiety about AI in universities, journalism, and graduate employment.
If institutions make their AI rules clearer, this could lead to better disclosure and more honest use of the tools. It may also push universities and newsrooms to set practical standards that let people use AI without hiding it.
If disclosure stays muddy, readers may keep losing trust in articles and institutions that use AI behind the scenes. The case could also deepen confusion about where helpful AI assistance ends and unacceptable machine-written publication begins.
