Financier Stanley Druckenmiller, who once served as Scott Bessent’s boss, has become one of the most vocal critics of the U.S. Treasury Secretary’s decision to expand the department’s bond buyback program in an effort to jolt the market back towards stability.
But, it’s come out that his very public commentary on the matter — which took the form of a Wall Street Journal op-ed — didn’t even wholly come from his own hand, but was crafted with the help of artificial intelligence.
And, the billionaire businessman and investor isn’t at all ashamed of it.
Thanks for subscribing!
The money news that actually matters.
By signing up, you accept Moneywise Terms of Use, Subscription Agreement, and Privacy Policy.
“Of course I used AI…I’m not embarrassed by it,” Druckenmiller told reporters at Notus, joking about his switch from an English program to an economics major early in his academic career.
As the former long-time hedge fund manager sees it, using AI to write is akin to “using a calculator when I do math problems.”
“I write everything using AI now,” he explained.
More people in power use AI behind the scenes
Druckenmiller is far from the only figure of note to reveal their somewhat surprising use of the controversial tech for certain tasks. Pfizer CEO Albert Boula stated in an interview this spring that he bounces some of his most difficult and important business decisions off of chatbots, while Ryan Roslansky, the head of LinkedIn, says he relies on them to draft “high-stakes” email correspondence.
OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman has even suggested people use large language models like his company’s ChatGPT to parent their kids.
“Every morning for the drive to school, have [AI] make a podcast that talks about one kid’s soccer game that afternoon, one kid’s upcoming birthday, some news, etc.” he wrote in an X post in late July, which spawned a flurry of negative responses. (Top among them was “What if you just talked to your children?”)
Must Read
- The ultra-rich use these 5 real estate strategies to build wealth while they sleep — you can start with just $100
- Here’s the average income of Americans by age in 2026. Are you keeping up or falling behind?
- Insurance companies profit most from drivers who auto-renew without shopping around. Comparing 100+ quotes takes 2 minutes and costs nothing
Join 250,000+ readers and get Moneywise’s best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.
WSJ’s and the public’s reaction
In Druckenmiller’s case, while some called the revelation “unforgivable,” the editor that published the column argued that “AI is a fact of modern life” that people will use “to assist in their work and their writing.”“The question for us is whether what we publish from contributors reflects an author’s original argument, and if the author has the standing and credibility to make it,” he said in a statement. For this critique, the editorial team felt that the answer was yes.
Some online users also questioned whether employing AI in such a situation is much different than hiring a speechwriter, ghostwriter or PR person for such a project, or than, say, using it for a cover letter, as many candidates now do.
The Financial Times, facing a similar controversy a few weeks ago when a Havard professor used AI to “condense” his own opinion piece, took a different tone, standing by the fact that the outlet’s code of conduct “specifically prohibits the use of AI in the writing process,” which was added after publication in an editor’s note.
Using AI for writing — where do we draw the line?
A primary concern, it seems, is that permitting such behaviour sets a precedent for the endorsement of AI writing in all sorts of contexts without disclosing the use of the tech.
Some contend that just because AI exists, does not mean it should just be “accepted everywhere,” and that for a publication as prestigious as WSJ, “asking people to pay for AI editorials is laughable stuff.”
Along with the numerous ethical implications of machine learning, including the industry’s gigantic impacts on land, water and electricity supply, there is the fact that using it for critical thinking diminishes our ability to synthesize on our own, reduces brain activity overall and influences our beliefs, among other things.
Even worse is the existential consideration: if we relegate passionate, philosophical and creative work, like writing, to machines, then what will we as humans have left?
You May Also Like
- JP Morgan sees gold hitting $6,000/oz before 2027 — and a Gold IRA lets you hold the physical metal while deferring the tax bill. Get your free guide from Priority Gold
- Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake — here’s what it is and the simple steps to fix it ASAP
- Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how
- Millionaires under 43 are reshaping investing — just 25% of their portfolios are in stocks. Here’s where their money is going
Becky Robertson is a senior staff reporter at Moneywise and a lifelong writer. Along with more than a decade covering news at outlets like blogTO and Quill & Quire, she's attended writing residencies around the world. With 33 countries visited, she finds travel to be among her greatest inspirations.
