No! There's something precious about being an observer, and having observers, in dangerous and important places. Machines can be disabled easier than people's minds can. I've seen some videos recently that seemed fine at first, but then referred to "King Charles eye eye eye" (instead of King Charles III) and "Sovereign Elizabeth" (not Queen Elizabeth). I turn those off as soon as they reveal themselves, and I would do the same with bigger stories. To me, it's a First Amendment version of not using "self-checkout" registers -- get minds involved, protect employment, and protect quality,
important not to conflate saving journalism jobs and providing the public with reliable information. both are important, but not automatically linked. interesting to see what's happening in medicine where we're nowhere near an algorithm capable of replacing a doctor, but see AI used in complementary roles like reading X-rays and analyzing test result patterns. Docs remain safe, but the amount of medicine computers do relentlessly grow.
I agree with the premise, that journalists need to free themselves of venture capitalists and the newspapers and media companies that control them, but I don't know that AI is the right pathway for that. I remember the two years I covered the courts in Blair County, Pa. for the Altoona Mirror. It was a learning experience for sure, but also an assignment that required a good deal of skill in reading people and what they were saying. Law itself is a pretty concrete thing, but the courtroom isn't. I could see AI replacing lawyers and legal aides without much challenge, given its capacity to compress and quickly present the history of anything. that could do a lot of good for a homicide case in which someone was wrongly charged. But sitting on a hard wooden bench and watching the complexity of a case play out, as in the prosecution of Wayne William in Fulton County in the child murder cases, i would suggest stretches far beyond the capacity of even the best of AI equipment. It is, after all, equipment. I think it might behoove our remaining reporters to form very little associations, much the same as AP or Reuters, then market their products to individual media outlets. They could also factor an internet presence based on courthouse coverage. This is all for another generation of reporters to figure out, of course. Although there were those strange old people who would sit in courtrooms and watch every case play out. Could be good sources for these kinds of things with a little training. At least it would keep a human touch in the process. The downside is that everything this kind of a system might produce would have to be professionally edited, and there is no sign venture capitalists like editors, either.
No! There's something precious about being an observer, and having observers, in dangerous and important places. Machines can be disabled easier than people's minds can. I've seen some videos recently that seemed fine at first, but then referred to "King Charles eye eye eye" (instead of King Charles III) and "Sovereign Elizabeth" (not Queen Elizabeth). I turn those off as soon as they reveal themselves, and I would do the same with bigger stories. To me, it's a First Amendment version of not using "self-checkout" registers -- get minds involved, protect employment, and protect quality,
important not to conflate saving journalism jobs and providing the public with reliable information. both are important, but not automatically linked. interesting to see what's happening in medicine where we're nowhere near an algorithm capable of replacing a doctor, but see AI used in complementary roles like reading X-rays and analyzing test result patterns. Docs remain safe, but the amount of medicine computers do relentlessly grow.
I agree with the premise, that journalists need to free themselves of venture capitalists and the newspapers and media companies that control them, but I don't know that AI is the right pathway for that. I remember the two years I covered the courts in Blair County, Pa. for the Altoona Mirror. It was a learning experience for sure, but also an assignment that required a good deal of skill in reading people and what they were saying. Law itself is a pretty concrete thing, but the courtroom isn't. I could see AI replacing lawyers and legal aides without much challenge, given its capacity to compress and quickly present the history of anything. that could do a lot of good for a homicide case in which someone was wrongly charged. But sitting on a hard wooden bench and watching the complexity of a case play out, as in the prosecution of Wayne William in Fulton County in the child murder cases, i would suggest stretches far beyond the capacity of even the best of AI equipment. It is, after all, equipment. I think it might behoove our remaining reporters to form very little associations, much the same as AP or Reuters, then market their products to individual media outlets. They could also factor an internet presence based on courthouse coverage. This is all for another generation of reporters to figure out, of course. Although there were those strange old people who would sit in courtrooms and watch every case play out. Could be good sources for these kinds of things with a little training. At least it would keep a human touch in the process. The downside is that everything this kind of a system might produce would have to be professionally edited, and there is no sign venture capitalists like editors, either.