Opponents of autonomous vehicles have placed multiple opinion pieces in local news outlets portraying Waymo as a threat to jobs, rider safety, government information, and emergency vehicle access. The AI‑detection service Pangram found that many of these op-eds showed substantial AI involvement, yet none of the examined pieces carried disclosures that AI had been used.
Arguments raised in the op-eds
The campaign’s opinion pieces argued that Waymo’s robotaxis could cost jobs, endanger passengers, deprive authorities of information, and block fire trucks. Several of the articles were produced with help from PR firms or communications teams.
Ira Goldstein, the former head of New York’s Black Car Fund and author of an op‑ed in the New York Daily News, said a PR firm prepared the first draft of his opinion piece, which he reviewed and edited. Goldstein told Semafor he stands by every word of the piece and that AI’s use to prepare an initial 700‑word draft without his knowledge is minor compared with what he sees as the economic and public‑safety damage thousands of AI‑powered robotaxis could inflict on New York City. He also said the PR firm in question later last year dropped the campaign and began working for Waymo.
Pangram’s findings — specific examples
Pangram analyzed several local op‑eds and reported high likelihoods of AI generation in multiple cases:
- Two Dallas Morning News pieces on autonomous vehicle accidents by local lawyer Amy Witherite registered as 95% and 71% likely to be AI‑written, respectively.
- A San Francisco Chronicle article by Michael Redmond warning that autonomous vehicles could go dormant in public streets during power outages was measured as 88% AI‑generated by Pangram.
- Another Daily News piece was assessed at 68% likely AI‑authored.
- A San Diego Union‑Tribune op‑ed arguing autonomous vehicles would probably displace jobs registered as 95% likely AI‑generated.
- A Times of San Diego article urging the city to track Waymo’s rollout was found to be 87% likely written with AI assistance.
Authors and newsrooms respond
Michael Redmond of the San Francisco Chronicle said he, like many writers, uses AI tools for research, to test arguments, organize thinking and clarify writing. Chronicle editor Matt Fleischer told Semafor the outlet asks opinion writers to disclose whether they used AI.
David Margulies, a spokesperson for Amy Witherite, said the communications firm that supports her helps develop, draft, edit and place pieces and ‘‘sometimes use AI tools to monitor media coverage, develop press lists and to prepare initial drafts, which are then reviewed, edited by our staff, fact‑checked and reviewed with Amy or other attorneys in the firm before she gives her comments and final approval.’’ He added that limited AI use is being characterized as a distraction and that every piece published under Witherite’s name reflects her views and is personally reviewed by her before submission.
Ryan Sanders, commentary editor at the Dallas Morning News, told Semafor by email that limited AI for research or polishing does not automatically disqualify a submission, but the paper does not accept pieces generated entirely by AI.
Andrew Julien, executive editor at the Daily News, said the organization plans to establish stricter guardrails around AI on the site, noting the paper’s ongoing litigation against Microsoft and OpenAI. Julien said the paper believes readers deserve original opinions, not machine‑generated content from companies it is suing for allegedly stealing content.
The campaign’s wider context
These AI‑assisted opinion pieces are part of a months‑long battle between Waymo and opponents over whether the autonomous driving company can operate commercially on the streets of major cities. The Washington Post reported that the Coalition for Accountability and Road Safety, a group opposing Waymo, spent more than $2.6 million on ads in the Washington, D.C. area in 2026 — more than the winning mayoral candidate spent that year.
Waymo currently operates commercially in 15 U.S. cities, but it faces opposition from labor unions, ride‑hail giants such as Uber and Lyft, AI‑skeptical groups and pedestrian‑safety advocates.
Questions about authorship and editorial standards
The episode highlights broader debates about authorship and newsroom standards in an era when AI tools are widely used for research and drafting. Some argue that outsourcing writing — whether to junior staff, PR firms or AI — has long been common in opinion pages, and AI is the latest tool to fill that role.
Others caution that allowing AI proliferation risks diluting the distinctive value news organizations offer: verified, human‑vetted perspective. Newsrooms are wrestling with where to draw the line between acceptable AI assistance (research, editing, polishing) and undisclosed generation that could mislead readers about who authored an opinion.
