Which is totally fine. I know several professional journalists, I even happen to employ (a former) one. None of them are using GenAI to write their articles.

Which is totally fine. I know several professional journalists, I even happen to employ (a former) one. None of them are using GenAI to write their articles. To help with research, topic idea and generation, maybe getting some options for how to rewrite a passage or headline, yes. All great, used right it helps them be more efficient and improves the end result. I have a very amateur background in journalism myself (edited my college and high school newspapers, took a class or two). I can smell excessive ChatGPT abuse on an article. It's like how good devs can smell bad code. ChatGPT tends to write articles which regurgitate popular viewpoints from the Internet in an equivocating way that isn't very engaging and contains no unique insights. In other words it's not output that most professional newsrooms would want to publish, it doesn't hook anybody (at least not yet). Current generative models also handle current events poorly. The Guardian are quite good at what they do and abusing e.g. ChatGPT would dilute their brand.