A range of computer systems can now produce sentences or even long stories that read as if a journalist wrote them. I played around with one — ChatGP,T a mind-boggling experience.
Wonderfully provocative and insightful -- as usual. But wondering whether there are really two discrete issues here -- AI and misinformation. Think our recent history with Fox and lotsa blogs suggest that people are quite capable and comfortable producing and sharing misinformation. Whether AI is any more likely to do so is an open question to me. I could envision a fact-based AI system that was less likely to do so.
jim is right on the button with everything connected to journalism, but there is one phrase in this essay that gives me pause: ..."the needs, desires and wishes of their audiences." AI is going to help journalists with this and hence, make their efforts more relevant. I think we have seen where this can lead in the latest dustup over Fox News, the medium that has elevated pandering to an art form. These people KNEW Donald Trump was wrong about the theft of the election, but were so afraid of losing audience they pushed the lie. I am wary of anything that would detach reporters from the obligation to put truth, no matter how uncomfortable, ahead of partisanship. I worry that having this kind of connection to an 'audience," even if fictional, will only push the willing more deeply into the pits of partisanship!
makes sense, but doesn't acknowledge the technology that allows editors instant feedback on what consumers/customers/audience are plugging into, a technology that wasn't widely available when you and Jim were (doing an excellent job of ) running things. The very existence of that real-time data is irresistible and will inevitably shade the resulting product. The fact that Fox used this technique in an extreme way doesn't deny its basic utility.
Well it actually was available! We had a thing at britannica that would change the colors of stories on an editors screen to show her what was getting hotter. Stories woul get get pinker and pinker. You would use that to move them to a better spot on the site or replace them with updates.The problem with that is that it gave more weight to a story about starbucks having a sale at a shop on michigan avenue than it gave to some congressional abomination because, you guessed it! That was what people were attracted to. A hard reality here is that editors, if they are good ones like jim or anne marie lipinski, put piblic interest before public passions. I dont think technology can do that.
Wonderfully provocative and insightful -- as usual. But wondering whether there are really two discrete issues here -- AI and misinformation. Think our recent history with Fox and lotsa blogs suggest that people are quite capable and comfortable producing and sharing misinformation. Whether AI is any more likely to do so is an open question to me. I could envision a fact-based AI system that was less likely to do so.
Hello jim! Hope you are well!
Likewise, Charlie. Thanks for your note updating me and confirming why you're my editor for life. cheers.
jim is right on the button with everything connected to journalism, but there is one phrase in this essay that gives me pause: ..."the needs, desires and wishes of their audiences." AI is going to help journalists with this and hence, make their efforts more relevant. I think we have seen where this can lead in the latest dustup over Fox News, the medium that has elevated pandering to an art form. These people KNEW Donald Trump was wrong about the theft of the election, but were so afraid of losing audience they pushed the lie. I am wary of anything that would detach reporters from the obligation to put truth, no matter how uncomfortable, ahead of partisanship. I worry that having this kind of connection to an 'audience," even if fictional, will only push the willing more deeply into the pits of partisanship!
makes sense, but doesn't acknowledge the technology that allows editors instant feedback on what consumers/customers/audience are plugging into, a technology that wasn't widely available when you and Jim were (doing an excellent job of ) running things. The very existence of that real-time data is irresistible and will inevitably shade the resulting product. The fact that Fox used this technique in an extreme way doesn't deny its basic utility.
Well it actually was available! We had a thing at britannica that would change the colors of stories on an editors screen to show her what was getting hotter. Stories woul get get pinker and pinker. You would use that to move them to a better spot on the site or replace them with updates.The problem with that is that it gave more weight to a story about starbucks having a sale at a shop on michigan avenue than it gave to some congressional abomination because, you guessed it! That was what people were attracted to. A hard reality here is that editors, if they are good ones like jim or anne marie lipinski, put piblic interest before public passions. I dont think technology can do that.