As trust in the mainstream media keeps collapsing, there is no doubt there are many who are rejoicing at the prospects of AI replacing the human journalists they’ve grown to be suspicious of.
Dr. Russ Roberts has done a large number of AI-related interviews on his podcast EconTalk. I don't remember which episode exactly it was where this thought was discussed, but the premise was that in order to be better discovered by SEO algorithms (think music on Spotify as an example) creators have evolved to producing formulaic content. So it's not as much that AI is reaching the levels where it is hard to distinguish from human-created content, but rather that at the same time, the human-created content is dumbed down to where it's barely distinguishable from AI-generated one. If one buys into this world-view, then the solution is clear: produce original and valuable content.
My biggest concern isn't that AI will be too unreliable to use, it's that we'll just shrug and use it anyway. When it comes to internet content, quantity crowds out quality. So please keep writing fellow human. Glad to have found your Substack!
Reluctantly following new Iowa law, the assistant superintendent of public instruction used ChatGPT to search controversial books, my YA novel among them, "to verify they contained descriptions of sex acts." Despite years of false claims, my novel comtains no sex acts (there are a few jokes about sex) and has been returned to Iowa book shelves. I don't think we've even begun to ponder the minor and major ways in which A.I. is going to go Terminator SkyNet on us.
Very worrying, and what a thing to happen to you! AI tools are being used to deal with violations on social media as well, and while they get things right often, they also tend to get things very wrong that a human wouldn't. When it has large consequences, it becomes a serious issue.
Glad to be subscribed! I agree that AI will not replace regular journalists. AI can be corrupted more easily even than mainstream reporters. What AI device would have the incentive to question the dominant narrative? To argue against the output of other AI devices?
People can build reputations. AI lacks a personality, a core around which to build one. People will remain.
If you are a journalist and your opinions, emotions, personality, and creativity is involved in your reporting, then you are already altering the truth of what you are supposed to be reporting on. This does not make your work more appealing than AI. You need a better argument
Depends on whether I'm reporting the news or writing a feature, conducting an interview, or doing an opinion piece. News is a different thing, and where AI might do best.
Dr. Russ Roberts has done a large number of AI-related interviews on his podcast EconTalk. I don't remember which episode exactly it was where this thought was discussed, but the premise was that in order to be better discovered by SEO algorithms (think music on Spotify as an example) creators have evolved to producing formulaic content. So it's not as much that AI is reaching the levels where it is hard to distinguish from human-created content, but rather that at the same time, the human-created content is dumbed down to where it's barely distinguishable from AI-generated one. If one buys into this world-view, then the solution is clear: produce original and valuable content.
My biggest concern isn't that AI will be too unreliable to use, it's that we'll just shrug and use it anyway. When it comes to internet content, quantity crowds out quality. So please keep writing fellow human. Glad to have found your Substack!
Reluctantly following new Iowa law, the assistant superintendent of public instruction used ChatGPT to search controversial books, my YA novel among them, "to verify they contained descriptions of sex acts." Despite years of false claims, my novel comtains no sex acts (there are a few jokes about sex) and has been returned to Iowa book shelves. I don't think we've even begun to ponder the minor and major ways in which A.I. is going to go Terminator SkyNet on us.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/01/opinion/book-ban-schools-iowa.html
Very worrying, and what a thing to happen to you! AI tools are being used to deal with violations on social media as well, and while they get things right often, they also tend to get things very wrong that a human wouldn't. When it has large consequences, it becomes a serious issue.
It's scary for writers.
Glad to be subscribed! I agree that AI will not replace regular journalists. AI can be corrupted more easily even than mainstream reporters. What AI device would have the incentive to question the dominant narrative? To argue against the output of other AI devices?
People can build reputations. AI lacks a personality, a core around which to build one. People will remain.
If you are a journalist and your opinions, emotions, personality, and creativity is involved in your reporting, then you are already altering the truth of what you are supposed to be reporting on. This does not make your work more appealing than AI. You need a better argument
Though, even in news, I'd argue that human discernment of the situation and complex analysis might play an important role.
Depends on whether I'm reporting the news or writing a feature, conducting an interview, or doing an opinion piece. News is a different thing, and where AI might do best.