The deeper issue isn’t whether AI should be used, but whether the tool keeps the human in control of the output. A reporter who dictates directly into a story,

The deeper issue isn’t whether AI should be used, but whether the tool keeps the human in control of the output. A reporter who dictates directly into a story, and can correct mid-sentence without stopping, is still fully authoring the piece. The AI is basically just faster typing. Compare that with an AI that generates a quote summary and the journalist reviews it. Now the AI is making calls about what matters, and the human is reduced to an editor instead of the primary author. The policy distinction that actually matters is "AI assists the human" versus "the human verifies AI output".