Letter from the Editor
Col. Andrew Steadman, U.S. Army
Download the PDF 
Would your impression of this letter change if I told you I used artificial intelligence (AI) to write it?
The use of AI is becoming ubiquitous, similar to how smartphones and email now permeate our personal and professional lives. AI is revolutionary because it condenses and distills the vast body of information, it provides unseen perspective, and it can make complex topics simple and easy to understand. As such, the use of AI is being touted by many as a necessity for the military; an article championing its use in professional military education appears in this issue of Military Review.1
AI also offers a shortcut to insight, however, which is a problem for writing.
A few months ago, when our editors at Army University Press began reviewing a well-written article that was submitted for publication, they had trouble verifying the sources the author cited. They stopped trying when they hit twenty nonexistent sources, concluding that the author may have had help from AI. We informed the author that we could not validate some of the sources and asked if they wanted to revise and resubmit the article. A few days later, we received a terse reply: “I will withdraw the article.”
Whether this author used AI is less important than the broader questions this situation raises:
- How prevalent is AI in professional writing today?
- Where, if anywhere, should AI be prohibited versus disclosed?
- What intellectual and institutional risks do we incur if AI becomes a substitute for human cognition and creativity?
In response to this situation, we at AUP felt compelled to address the use of AI in the guidelines for the 2026 General William E. DePuy Writing Contest:
While the use of AI when developing papers is not forbidden, authors should use it judiciously and sparingly. Authors must document their use of AI including the tool used, its purpose, and the extent to which it influenced their work. All sources, facts, and citations must be true and accurate, and authors take sole responsibility for validating all AI-generated information. The review panel will disqualify manuscripts when the members cannot verify the sources cited, or when there is credible evidence that AI has significantly enhanced the author’s writing (e.g., generating content for the author).2
We recognize that trying to ban AI would be futile, and as stewards of the profession, we are responsible for helping authors navigate this abrupt collision of technology and creativity. As a professional, you also bear this responsibility. If you are a leader serving in a unit, an agency, or a school, we encourage you to take the lead in shaping how your population uses artificial intelligence.
And when you sit down to write, incorporate AI judiciously, with intention and discernment. Use AI to brainstorm, explore perspectives, and organize your thoughts, but be careful not to cross your “creative Rubicon.” That’s the point where your AI tool does something you can’t do, or worse, does something you wouldn’t do.
If the style, meaning, and intent of your writing drifts away from being you, it’s time to step back and go solo. Good writing originates from the nuanced, hard-earned perspective of the author’s unique experiences. Artificial intelligence cannot deliver that. Better to struggle through a paper the old-fashioned way than to mute your original voice with free sentences from AI.
Ultimately, AI may add efficiency to professional discourse, but it will not add credibility.
Where the profession goes from here is up to us. It is up to you.
Notes 
- Peyton Hurley, “A Choice to Lead: Generative AI in Army PME,” Military Review 106, no. 1 (January-February 2026): 74–83.
- “The General William E. DePuy Writing Contest,” Army University Press, accessed 23 January 2026, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/DePuy-Writing-Competition/.
Back to Top