I think if that were the issue, they can say "We will maintain the same high quality standards which we expect throughout for all pieces". But that isn't what the article talks about, the article frames it as "standing up to the machine" and talks about how corporations talk about it. It ends on a John Henry comparison. Which seems not in line with the "We'll interact with it, but not have anything written directly by it" notion that this is describing.

>they want to make sure the finalized articles are handwritten and aren't chockful of LLM slophistry

This seems like a pretty reasonable perspective for a magazine. Use AI for ideation and research but not to create the final version of articles for publication.

I predict this is going to change soon similar to how "look at how bad AI is at coding" changed. I understand that we all feel like something with a soul should be doing this stuff and it feels wrong to read something that "no thought" was put into. But if it's able to write better and more informed (because it can research and integrate ideas many orders of magnitude faster) than some of the better writers I don't see why you would ever read the less informed, worse written version. We definitely aren't there yet but I don't see any reason why we won't get there. It's not like excellent writing is such an onerous task it can never be solved.

Would you still hold the same position when AI inevitably reaches human intelligence?

If yes: why? If no: why?

They wrote which things they're concerned about in the article. They included things like "Capitalists say it will replace workers", which, if you're a magazine intending to provide your own perspective, repeating the capitalist narrative but then inverting it and saying it's bad does, I think, suck as a narrative.

i think a lot of people have forgotten this. most tech people are so metrics pilled that it's impossible for them to fathom anything spiritually richer

Writing a moral into a narrative doesn't make it narrativeless. They're still saying something, and if what they're saying is wrong and missing the point, then just calling it a moral position doesn't make what's being argued any more real or the ideas any better.

It always matters.

I recall a classic photo of a meeting in Nazi Germany where one single man didn’t stand up to applaud Hitler.

It doesn’t matter if you win right now. It matters not to betray yourself.