I’m actually pretty bullish on AI, especially open-weight models, but I don't think the narrative is necessarily framed poorly.

All they’re saying is that they want to make sure the finalized articles are handwritten and aren't chockful of LLM slophistry. They even mention in this very article that they’re not against writers using AI-space adjacent tools to do preliminary research.

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.