AI and the Future of Opinion Pieces

The Guardian published a concerning article on July 12, 2025, titled: “Quality of scientific papers questioned as academics ‘overwhelmed’ by the millions published.” The article discussed an explosion of scientific publications, often generated by artificial intelligence (AI), to the point of overwhelming journals and drowning human contributions in a mass of articles with sometimes dubious content.

This observation raises a legitimate question: if AI is capable of writing scientific articles, can it also write opinion pieces? Can it replace the author of a text of opinion, reflection, or commitment?

The question deserves to be asked, not only for technical reasons, but also for intellectual and ethical considerations. At first glance, AI seems well-suited for the task: it can produce clear, well-structured texts, free of errors, and adapted to a specific tone. It masters the art of rhetoric, can synthesize multiple sources, and imitate the style of a seasoned editorial writer.

The Essence of Living Thought

However, an opinion piece is not limited to an elegant form. It is the result of personal thought, commitment, sometimes anger or hope. It implies a position, a singular point of view, rooted in human experience.

Victor Hugo (1802-1885) wrote: “Form is the substance that rises to the surface.” In other words, a good text does not separate appearance from content: it embodies a living thought. Can an AI, however sophisticated, formulate its own thought? Can it feel injustice, be indignant, doubt, believe, or hope? No. It can mimic these emotions, but not live them. The strength of an opinion piece often lies in what escapes pure logic: an intuition, an intimate experience, a flaw, or a revolt. These are things that AI can only simulate.

---

Enjoyed this post by Thibault Helle? Subscribe for more insights and updates straight from the source.