If The Economist had just two loyalties(忠诚；忠心), they might well be to good prose and creative destruction(创造性破坏). Those seldom previously came into conflict—until artificial-intelligence models began writing. Now, AI text is winning literary awards, occupying op-ed(（报纸的）评论版；专栏版) pages and, as we report this week, filling the mouths of politicians(塞进政客嘴里（指代写发言）). One in ten words spoken in Britain’s parliamentary debates, and one in seven in America’s House of Representatives, are probably drafted by AI.(英国议会辩论中每十个词就有一个、美国众议院中每七个词就有一个，很可能是由AI起草的。)
如果说《经济学人》只有两个忠诚对象，那很可能就是优美的文笔和创造性破坏。这两者以前很少发生冲突——直到人工智能模型开始写作。如今，AI文本正在赢得文学奖项、占据评论版面，而且正如我们本周报道的那样，还塞进了政客的嘴里。英国议会辩论中每十个词就有一个、美国众议院中每七个词就有一个，很可能是由AI起草的。
When it comes to(谈到；涉及) the written word, no writer is a neutral party. This newspaper has applauded technological progress for nearly two centuries. It would be churlish(粗鲁无礼的；不体面的) to turn Luddite(卢德分子，指反对新技术的人) only now, once the wolves of automation have turned up at our own door(自动化的狼群已来到自家门口). And yet. Both writers and readers should be wary(警惕的；小心的) of passing the pen to AI.
在文字写作这件事上，没有哪个作家是中立的。本刊近两个世纪以来一直为技术进步喝彩。如今自动化的狼群已经来到自家门口，此时才变成卢德分子，未免太不体面。然而。作家和读者都应对把笔交给AI保持警惕。
Admittedly, in some sorts of writing an AI takeover(接管；收购) would be welcome: customer-service complaints, say, or technical write-ups where clarity is all(以清晰为要务). What matters in such cases is disclosing(披露；公开) the use of AI and making sure that the human being whose name is on the page still takes responsibility. Writers of all sorts would be doing their readers a disservice if they did not use AI models for research, proofreading and, when appropriate, feedback.(如果各种类型的作家不利用AI模型进行研究、校对，并在适当的时候获取反馈，那对读者是一种伤害。)
诚然，在某些类型的写作中，AI接管会大受欢迎：比如客服投诉，或者以清晰为要务的技术文档。在这些情况下，重要的是披露AI的使用，并确保署名者仍然承担责任。如果各种类型的作家不利用AI模型进行研究、校对，并在适当的时候获取反馈，那对读者是一种伤害。
The medium and the message
媒介与信息