In partnership with
Welcome back. Last week we talked about U.S. debt and its impact on corporates.
Today’s edition features Navy Federal Credit Union chief economist Heather Long on Fed Chair Kevin Warsh’s Jackson Hole speech, plus Glass Lewis research on A.I. oversight.
For paid members: I reveal where I use A.I. in publishing this newsletter — which takes at least three days to report, write, and edit.
Macro Talk is an independent business news platform that helps senior executives understand where the economy is headed and what the future of work looks like. Share this newsletter with your board, CEO, and leadership team. Subscribe to Macro Talk’s podcast on YouTube, Apple, and Spotify.
Become a Macro Talk Media Insider for tips on pitching, insight into Macro Talk’s editorial process, quarterly calls with founder Hope King, and more. Hit reply to learn more.
The Rising Tide:
Disclosing A.I. Use
Screenshot: Axios’ Dan Primack on X, August 24, 2026. Are you a yes or no?
The A.I.-detection game spread to Wall Street and the Wall Street Journal this week by way of a commentary article.
The debate that followed its publication revealed the continuing public divide over A.I.-generated work — and uneven rules around its use.
For executives, the fallout demonstrates the “A.I. disclosure penalty” theory:
“Studies consistently show that people increasingly tend to rate the quality of A.I. produced content more highly than the one produced by human labor — provided they don’t know it’s A.I.-generated.
They will judge the exact same content harshly once they learn of its A.I. origins.”
Let’s back up
Billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller said he used A.I. to write his WSJ opinion column.
His piece criticized Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s bond buyback strategy.
Given their relationship, described at times as mentor-mentee, the op-ed attracted wide Wall Street attention.
In an interview with the digital news platform, Druckenmiller said: "of course I used A.I.” when writing. "I'm not embarrassed by it."
Dismay and defense
It’s unclear exactly how he used A.I. But he denied to NOTUS that “the whole thing” was written with A.I.
Paul Gigot, the WSJ’s editorial page editor, argued that the details were moot.
In his own separate op-ed, he defended Druckenmiller and called A.I. “a fact of modern life”:
“[Druckenmiller] has written for us in the past, and I suspect that he had help from his human staff when he did. This time he used A.I. But in each case the ideas were his and they served to inform readers and, I hope, make them think.
Ah, say the parsons, then why not ‘disclose’ any A.I. use? But disclose what? Interrogate an author on how precisely he used ChatGPT? I know some publications claim to do this, but I suspect it’s more pro forma than systematic.”
Gigot’s column had drawn over 200 comments as of Saturday night. Here are a few that capture the range of sentiment:
“This is a guy who made it to the top of the economic world. Who cares if he uses smoke signals I want to know what he thinks.”
“People need to chill.”
“You essentially got caught cheating and the justification is who cares everybody does it. Lol, okay.”
“If I were still trying to write for public consumption I would be reaching for the Strunk and White with its sage and concise rules governing A.I. use.”
“It’s a category error to think the problem is isolated to journalism.”
That last one matters most because it acknowledges the larger disclosure question looming over nearly all companies. This isn’t just about slop.
Marketers, researchers, and auditors alike are grappling with proper A.I. transparency. The issue is growing too — from labeling individual work to disclosing how A.I. runs inside companies:
“[W]ith the number of A.I.-related incidents on the rise, coupled with shareholder pressure, companies may begin to implement more robust governance frameworks to effectively address these concerns. A.I.’s rapid integration into companies’ processes, products and services warrants proportional disclosure and engagement efforts to best mitigate shareholder concerns and A.I.-related risks.
Notably, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Investor Advisory Committee recently recommended that issuers: (i) define ‘artificial intelligence’ in their disclosures; (ii) disclose board oversight mechanisms for A.I. deployment; and (iii) report on the material effects of A.I. on internal operations and consumer-facing matters.”
In areas like healthcare, Americans are already demanding transparency about A.I.’s role in their treatment.
Where to begin
For the kind of A.I. disclosure that builds trust, Wharton’s Cornelia Walther recommends:
Understanding that A.I. disclosure is a trust issue at every level, from individual relationships to a company’s reputation.
Accepting that this is ambiguous territory and designing guidelines to “accommodate nuances” with baseline rules.
Ultimately, all companies are facing “a delicate balance: encourage A.I. adoption for competitive advantage while maintaining stakeholder confidence,” she observes.
“Just as plagiarism detection tools matter less than cultivating academic integrity, A.I. disclosure may depend more on professional norms than technical surveillance,” she suggests.
Where it’s all going
Through the Druckenmiller incident, we now know the Journal’s own baseline and nuances:
“The rule for those of us at WSJ Opinion is that everything my colleagues and I write must be original work. No letting A.I. draft a column or editorial. Our readers need to know we’re not subcontracting our ideas or prose to the amalgamation of a machine. Younger writers in particular need to learn how to write for themselves or they should leave the business. …
The question is more complicated for outside contributors like Mr. Druckenmiller. They aren’t professional writers, yet they can provide value for readers owing to their expertise and standing in public life.”
One rule for some, and a softer one for others? That’s setting up the next debate, as Axios' Emily Peck framed it: who's allowed to get away with A.I.?
A message from our sponsor:
Stop letting busywork get in the way of selling
Researching accounts. Building lists. Writing sequences.
There's a better use of your team's time.
Apollo is the AI revenue engine that handles the busywork, so you can stay focused on selling.
Plus, everything you need is in one place:
230M+ verified contacts
AI-powered outreach
Data enrichment
Inbound lead capture
Meeting scheduler
And more
Stop doing busywork and start building pipeline, faster.
With Apollo — the AI revenue engine powering 4M+ users.
Macro Talk:
The “A.I. Fed Chair”
JACKSON HOLE, WYOMING - AUGUST 28: Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium. (Photo by Natalie Behring/Getty Images)
Jackson Hole — shorthand for the annual meeting of global central bankers and other economic thinkers — is one of the most important economic events of the year.
“Traditionally, the Fed chair uses the Jackson Hole speech to deliver a particularly important and long-range message,” Axios’ Neil Irwin explains.
This year was Kevin Warsh’s first as chair — and he used his closely watched keynote speech to:
clarify why he’s avoiding forward guidance,
reassure markets and the public about the fight to tame inflation, and
share his views on the state of the economy — including A.I.’s impact.
To understand the message behind his words, Macro Talk tapped Navy Federal Credit Union chief economist Heather Long to decode the speech. (Hint: Rates are almost certainly going up.)
Below is our email Q&A, lightly edited for clarity.
Macro Talk: Why does Jackson Hole matter?
Heather Long: Any time a Fed chair speaks, it matters. But Jackson Hole was a test for new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh. He's only been in the job 100 days, and Wall Street still doesn't understand him. Warsh needed to provide more clarity on how he sees the economy and interest rates. He did that.
What was the biggest surprise from the speech?
Warsh started his speech by talking about hikes — literal ones. He also surprised me by saying explicitly that the better-than-expected CPI and PCE readings this summer "do not tell me that underlying trends have meaningfully improved." That was hawkish and different from his remarks earlier this summer.
This year’s theme was innovation. Why does "the conduct of policy at the Fed" need "innovation"?
Fed Chair Kevin Warsh believes his No. 1 mission is to bring the U.S. central bank into the A.I. age. His five task forces are all about making the central bank communicate differently, consider a wider array of real-time data, and better assess the game-changing impact of A.I.
Why did he tackle A.I. first?
Warsh is the A.I. Fed Chair. He talks about it constantly, and he clearly believes A.I. will upend most of what we thought we knew about the economy and its potential.
He called this a "hinge point in history" and spelled out his belief that this will cause higher growth and productivity.
What felt new in this speech is how many questions he thinks are still unanswered, especially about A.I.'s impacts on the labor market, the price of tokens, and what all this means for markets. Basically, he was a lot more humble in this speech about all we don't know about A.I.
This part of the speech seemed telling: "With so much changing so fast in geopolitics, global supply chains, and technology, it's wise to be modest about what we can and cannot know." If markets and business leaders are looking for certainty, this sounds like the Fed is saying "even we don't know" more than ever.
What Kevin Warsh was really saying about uncertainty is that he believes the Fed needs better models and a wider range of data. While nothing will ever give the full picture, he thinks the Fed can do a lot better than it currently is doing. Warsh also clearly does not like responding to the daily headlines — or even one or two data points — and wants to stop the Fed from reacting so often.
"Trends matter most." That phrasing stuck out to me. Trends are Macro Talk’s beat. Was this significant?
Kevin Warsh won't be making his September or October or December rate hike calls based on one or two data points. That's a big departure from Powell and Yellen.
What should the average consumer or worker take away from the speech?
The main takeaway is that interest rates are almost certainly going up. The question is when. September or December? Warsh didn't commit to September, but he seems to be leaning toward a hike.
What should business leaders take away?
The main takeaway for business leaders is that Fed Chair Warsh does listen to markets. Wall Street wanted him to say more about his views on inflation and what data he watches, and he did that. He is responsive.
Warsh is also extremely interested in how quickly A.I. will impact productivity. He put business leaders on his task forces. He clearly wants to hear more from the business community to assess A.I.'s impacts on the economy.
Why does the Fed need "market signals"?
At the end of the day, borrowing costs are mostly determined by the bond market. The Fed has some influence on the bond market, but there are a lot of other influences. Fed Chair Warsh wants to see what markets really think about the health of the economy.
For more with Heather, check out our podcast episode on the K-shaped economy.
For more on the Fed’s move to defer to markets, check out Macro Talk’s piece from July.
Disclosure:
Given today’s Rising Tide, it’s worth putting my own A.I. use on the record.
Running Macro Talk solo — reporting, writing, producing, hosting, editing, video editing, writing proposals — means I lean on A.I. a lot.
But I have never asked A.I. to generate initial drafts of these newsletters or to come up with story ideas.
Each edition takes me at least three days to develop, report, write, edit, fact-check, and publish. I’ve pulled more all-nighters this year than I can count, writing up until send times.
Where I do use A.I.:
Subscribe to Macro Talk to read the rest.
Become a paying subscriber of Macro Talk to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.
Upgrade