I never thought I’d have to write these words but here I am: my name is Peter and I am human.

What seems like a self-evident proclamation needs to be made now because the misuse of AI is transforming considered op-eds such as this into “slop-inion” that is infecting the editorial pages of reputable media outlets.

In recent weeks Crikey has had to remove a series on leadership, while the features editor at Capital Brief took to LinkedIn bemoaning the fact that 80-90% of all submissions appear to be AI-generated.

Of course, plagiarism has always been a journalistic sin, and if one holds out the work of ChatGPT as one’s own, then that is clearly crossing a fundamental ethical line. But it’s not enough to run an AI check over the final copy for telltale bot-speak: the TEDx-style false negatives; the rhetorical questions, the inspirational pivot, the em dash. There are lots of grey areas in between. What if AI does the core research? Suggests the angle? Spots a logical inconsistency? When does the output stop being human?

As a loud and proud AI sceptic, I have been resistant to using the technology in my work. But recognising that I need to know thy enemy, I’ve spent the last month trying Anthropic’s Claude to understand how it might “support” my writing process.

To guide me on this journey, I’ve been taking advice from former Australian chief scientist Alan Finkel who has launched a global certification process for creators to “verify” their work is human-authored. Indeed, I’m delighted to become their first........

© The Guardian