“Can AI replace the author of an opinion piece?”

On July 12, 2025, The Guardian published an article with the worrying title: "Quality of scientific papers questioned as academics “overwhelmed” by the millions published ." It discusses an explosion of scientific publications, often generated by artificial intelligence (AI), to the point of saturating 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 columns? Can it replace the author of an opinion, reflection or engagement text?

The question is worth asking, not only for technical reasons, but also for intellectual and ethical considerations. At first glance, AI seems cut out for the task: it can produce clear, well-structured texts, free of errors, and adapted to a specific tone. It has mastered the art of rhetoric, can synthesize multiple sources, and mimic the style of a seasoned editorial writer.

However, a platform is not limited to an elegant form. It is the fruit of personal thought, commitment, sometimes anger or hope. It presupposes a position, a singular point of view, anchored in human experience.

Victor Hugo (1802-1885) wrote: "Form is content rising 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 experience them. What makes a platform powerful is often what escapes pure logic: an intuition, an intimate experience, a flaw, or a revolt. These are things that AI can only simulate.

You have 63.54% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.