A uni professor admitted using AI to write an opinion piece. Here’s what it revealed about trust in the technology

2026-06-05 · Source: AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian · Field: Technology & Digital — Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning, Human Resources & Workforce Development, Publishing & Journalism · Depth: Novice, short

Summary

A recent incident involving a Western Sydney University pro vice-chancellor, Cath Ellis, who admitted using Microsoft Copilot to write an opinion piece for the Sydney Morning Herald without prior disclosure, underscores a significant disparity between AI adoption and public trust in Australia. While 58% of Australians over 14, or 13.6 million people, use AI monthly—with ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot being popular tools, especially among the 25-49 age group—only 4% trust the technology. This low trust level, comparable to data brokers, is exacerbated by a lack of transparency; 79% of people demand disclosure when AI is used. The incident, where the SMH removed the piece after the university's post-publication admission, highlights how undisclosed AI use erodes faith in established industries, leading to calls for new policies from entities like Fair Work Australia and pushback in academic and programming communities.

Key takeaway

For organizational leaders implementing AI tools or developing AI-assisted content, you must prioritize explicit transparency regarding AI's involvement. Your failure to disclose AI use, even for minor assistance, risks severe reputational damage and erodes public trust, as demonstrated by the Western Sydney University incident. Proactively establish clear AI usage policies and disclosure guidelines to normalize AI's role and prevent accusations that undermine your organization's credibility.

Key insights

Undisclosed AI use erodes public trust and undermines industry credibility.

Principles

• Transparency builds AI trust.
• Undisclosed AI use erodes credibility.
• Public trust in AI remains very low.

In practice

• Disclose AI assistance in content creation.
• Implement clear AI usage policies.
• Monitor public perception of AI tools.

Topics

• AI Trust
• Transparency
• Generative AI
• Public Perception
• AI Ethics
• Disclosure Policies
• Microsoft Copilot

Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Director of AI/ML, AI Ethicist, Policy Maker, General Interest

Related on AIssential

• The risks of inviting AI into the heart of our economy, society and governance | Letters — The core risk of AI lies in its capacity to blur truth, erode provenance, and diminish human originality and empathy.
• I’m Proudly AI-Assisted. I’m Done Apologizing for It. — Embracing AI assistance openly and without apology is crucial for normalizing its integration into professional workflows.
• Enabling and Inhibitory Pathways of University Students' Willingness to Disclose AI Use: A Cognition-Affect-Conation Perspective — Psychological safety and clear institutional guidance are key to students' willingness to disclose AI use.
• Professionals feel disrespected when clients fact-check them with AI, study says — Professionals feel disrespected when clients use AI to fact-check their expertise, diminishing engagement and trust.
• Closing Information Gaps via AI Transparency — AI transparency is crucial for accountability, requiring high-quality information about both technical and human system components.
• Most people do not realize when a personal message they receive was written by AI, study finds — People generally lack skepticism about AI-generated personal messages, leading to an "AI disclosure penalty."

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian.