New official tasked with promoting Poland criticised over error-strewn, potentially AI-generated report

A newly appointed government official tasked with promoting Poland internationally has faced intense scrutiny after a report attributed to her was found riddled with errors and suspected of being generated by artificial intelligence. The document, titled A Self-Portrait of the Poles, was authored by Barbara Mróz-Gorgoń, a professor at Wrocław University of Economics and the country's new plenipotentiary for the promotion of Poland's national brand. The controversy erupted this week after journalists highlighted numerous inaccuracies and peculiarities within the report, raising questions about its authenticity and the use of public funds. Mróz-Gorgoń was appointed just three weeks ago by Prime Minister Donald Tusk during a press conference, marking her role as head of the think tank Marka Polska (Brand Poland). The report, published last year under her name, was presented as part of a project supposedly funded by the Ministry of Sport and Tourism. However, the ministry has since denied any involvement, prompting calls from the opposition for an investigation into possible misuse of public money. Critics pointed to several glaring geographical errors in the document, including the incorrect placement of major Polish cities. For instance, Katowice, located in southern Poland, was described as being in the "north central" region, while Wrocław, situated in the southwest, was mistakenly labeled as being in the "northwest." These errors were accompanied by odd linguistic choices, such as the random insertion of English words into Polish text, some of which appeared to be translated incorrectly or used inappropriately. One particularly controversial passage claimed that "after World War Two, Germany did not build its brand on the Holocaust," a statement that drew immediate skepticism from analysts. Other sections featured terms like "INSTABILNOŚĆ" and "REZILIENCE," which appear to be direct translations of "instability" and "resilience" but are not recognized as valid Polish vocabulary. Another segment asserted that 95% of Poles born after 1990 are "polilingwalni", a fabricated term derived from "polylingual", and that many of them speak "angielski fluent," suggesting they communicate in English fluently. This assertion has been widely disputed by experts, who argue that such a high percentage of bilingualism among young Poles is implausible. Beyond the linguistic anomalies, the report contained irregularities in its formatting, including footnotes that were numbered inconsistently. On one page alone, three consecutive footnotes were listed as numbers 41, 517, and 6, with some footnotes appearing entirely empty. These inconsistencies further fueled suspicions that the document might have been produced using AI tools, a hypothesis supported by analyses conducted with software designed to detect AI-generated text. Experts and commentators have increasingly voiced concerns about the implications of these findings. Some have questioned whether a university professor with a doctorate would produce such a report, especially given the substantial public funding allegedly behind it. Others have raised broader issues regarding the credibility of state-sponsored projects and the need for greater oversight in their execution. The controversy has sparked discussions about the reliability of information disseminated by public institutions and the potential risks associated with relying on unverified data. As the situation unfolds, attention will likely shift toward the responses of both the government and the ministry involved, as well as the outcome of any formal investigations that may follow. The public awaits clarity on the origins of the report and the extent of its impact on Poland's international image.