Western Sydney University Admits Copilot Use in SMH Op-Ed, Triggering Takedown as 79% Want AI Disclosed
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · Jun 5
Western Sydney University Admits Copilot Use in SMH Op-Ed, Triggering Takedown as 79% Want AI Disclosed
3 articles · Updated · The Guardian · Jun 5
Summary
Western Sydney University said Microsoft Copilot was used to develop a Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece by pro vice-chancellor Cath Ellis, and the paper removed it after Guardian Australia asked about the article.
The undisclosed AI use drew scrutiny because the op-ed argued against students cutting corners even as large language models can produce essays and other university work; SMH later published a mea culpa.
13.6 million Australians — 58% of people over 14 — now use AI monthly, led by ChatGPT, underscoring a widening gap between rapid adoption and weak trust.
That tension is spreading across workplaces and media: Fair Work Australia wants power to reject AI-made applications, and disputes over undisclosed AI use are surfacing in academia, programming and film.
With AI use soaring while trust plummets, what is the breaking point for its integration into our daily lives?
As AI becomes a silent partner in our work, who is ultimately accountable for its mistakes: the user or the developer?
How can new rules turn AI disclosure from a 'confession' into a standard practice for professional integrity?
AI Authorship Under Fire: The 2026 WSU-SMH Controversy and the Push for Mandatory Disclosure Standards
Overview
In June 2026, Professor Cath Ellis of Western Sydney University published an opinion piece in The Sydney Morning Herald, warning about the risks of AI. Ironically, it was later revealed—after being flagged by AI-detection software—that she had used Microsoft Copilot to help write the article without disclosing this. This sparked a public debate about academic integrity and journalistic ethics. Western Sydney University stated they were unaware her actions breached editorial guidelines, highlighting a gap between academic and media standards. The controversy led to the article’s retraction and calls for clearer rules on AI use and disclosure in both academia and journalism.