Semafor reported in an exclusive on 8 November 2026 that opponents of Waymo placed op-eds in local news outlets that the AI detection service Pangram found were written with a significant amount of AI input. Semafor reported that “none contain labels disclosing AI use”.
Semafor listed Pangram scores for six op-eds in five outlets, from 68% to 95%. By our arithmetic the median of the six is 87.5%, and four of the six scored 87% or more.
Business Pill · Guardrails Explained
A short Business Engineer explainer on AI guardrails. It teaches the general idea only and does not discuss Waymo, Semafor or these op-eds.
The key insight: Semafor reported on 8 November 2026 that the AI detector Pangram scored six op-eds opposing Waymo, in five outlets, at 68% to 95% AI-written, and that none carried a label disclosing AI use. Goldstein told Semafor he reviewed and edited a first draft prepared by a PR firm, and the three editors quoted described different AI policies.
According to Semafor, the op-eds argued that Waymo could cost jobs, endanger riders, deprive the government of information and block fire trucks. Two pieces in the Dallas Morning News on autonomous vehicle accidents, by a local lawyer, registered as 95% and 71% AI-written on Pangram.
Semafor reported that a San Francisco Chronicle piece on how autonomous vehicles could go dormant in streets during power outages scored 88%. A New York Daily News piece from 26 October 2026 scored 68%. A San Diego Union-Tribune piece arguing autonomous vehicles would likely displace jobs registered as 95% likely AI-generated, and a Times of San Diego piece on tracking Waymo’s rollout scored 87%.
Pangram AI-detection scores for six op-eds opposing Waymo, as reported by Semafor on 8 November 2026. Semafor reported none carried a label disclosing AI use. The 87.5% median is our arithmetic.
What the Authors and Editors Said
Ira Goldstein, the former head of New York’s Black Car Fund, wrote a January 2026 op-ed in the Daily News and told Semafor in a statement: “A first draft of this OpEd was prepared by our PR firm at the time, which is standard procedure when working with a PR firm.” He added that “I stand by every word in this OpEd”. Semafor reported Goldstein said the PR firm later dropped the campaign to work for Waymo.
The Chronicle author told Semafor: “I use AI tools for research, to sometimes test my arguments, help organize my thinking, and make my writing as clear as possible.” A spokesperson for the Dallas author said the firm that runs her communications helps develop, draft, edit and place the pieces, and that its staff “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” before her final approval. The spokesperson also said: “AI is just being used as a shiny object to try to change the subject.”
Chronicle editor Matt Fleischer told Semafor its policy is to ask opinion writers to disclose whether they used AI. Dallas Morning News commentary editor Ryan Sanders said: “we don’t accept pieces generated entirely by AI”. Daily News executive editor Andrew Julien said the paper aims to create stricter guardrails against AI, citing its litigation against Microsoft and OpenAI.
The Fight Behind the Op-Eds
Semafor described a monthslong battle between Waymo and its rivals over commercial operation in several major cities. It cited The Washington Post reporting that the Coalition for Accountability and Road Safety, a group of Waymo opponents, spent more than $2.6 million on ads in the DC area in 2026. Semafor said Waymo operates commercially in 15 US cities and has faced opposition from labor unions, Uber, Lyft, AI-skeptical groups and pedestrian safety advocates.
As we read the Semafor report, the issue the editors raised is disclosure: Goldstein and the Dallas author’s spokesperson describe people reviewing drafts, and the editors quoted describe policies on labelling and on pieces generated entirely by AI.
As we read it, the scores bring AI-written advocacy into the regulatory fight over where robotaxis may operate, a fight Semafor describes between Waymo and its rivals, alongside paid ads such as the $2.6 million coalition spend cited from The Washington Post.
As we read the editors’ replies, the three outlets quoted handle undisclosed AI drafting differently, from asking writers to disclose to rejecting pieces generated entirely by AI.
Ryan Sanders, Dallas Morning News commentary editor, to Semafor, 8 November 2026
“Limited use of AI for research or polishing doesn’t automatically disqualify a submission, but we don’t accept pieces generated entirely by AI”
Three Implications
FOR OPINION EDITORS Semafor reported that none of the op-eds it listed carried a label disclosing AI use.
FOR AV POLICY FIGHTS Semafor described a monthslong battle over whether Waymo can operate commercially in several major cities.
FOR DETECTION The scores come from one tool, Pangram, as Semafor reported them.
The analysis says: “That capability threshold — distribution at consumer-internet scale — is what triggered the supercycle.”
As we read it, the Semafor report is one case of that capability reaching local opinion pages, in a fight over robotaxis. The analysis predates the report and does not discuss it.
What Is Not Established
Semafor’s report does not say who organised the op-eds as a whole or that the Coalition placed them. Pangram scores are estimates from one detection tool. Goldstein told Semafor he reviewed and edited his op-ed, and the Dallas author’s spokesperson said her pieces are reviewed and approved by her. Semafor did not give a Pangram score for the January Daily News op-ed, and its report contains no comment from Waymo.
This Week In The AI Supercycle
The Great Convergence of Capital, Power, and Geopolitics
This week’s issue: for two years the AI build-out was priced as a supply story, and last week as a credit story. This week it was priced as a permission story, and the answer arrived as a cost, not a ban.
Semafor reported that six op-eds opposing Waymo in five outlets scored 68% to 95% on the Pangram AI detector, with none labelled as AI-assisted; the median is 87.5% by our arithmetic. Authors and editors gave Semafor different accounts of how AI was used and what their policies allow.
A note on sourcing. All scores, quotations and statements are from Semafor’s exclusive of 8 November 2026, read in full on 9 November 2026; the $2.6 million ad figure is Semafor citing The Washington Post. Pangram scores are as Semafor reported them. We did not contact Waymo, the authors or the outlets. The median and the four-of-six count are our arithmetic.
Gennaro Cuofano is a CRO and tech executive who has worked in AI since late 2015, starting with bringing NLP, natural-language generation, voice and chatbot products to the marketing industry. His background is in law and finance: he holds a Master's degree in Law and an International MBA with an emphasis on corporate finance (LUISS Business School and the University of San Diego, 2012), and worked as a financial analyst at a real-estate investment firm in San Diego and as an assistant controller. His work focuses on business model strategy, business engineering and, more broadly, structural analysis: how companies make money, read from their own filings. He created FourWeekMBA and leads research there and at The Business Engineer, his newsletter on AI and business strategy, with over 95,000 subscribers and more than 1,000 published analyses. His writing has also appeared on Entrepreneur (for example, How to Digitize a Family Business in Europe) and HackerNoon. Find him on LinkedIn and Substack. See how we source.
