31–40 of 176 posts
Their agenda is evident in their claim that AI is unbiased. It's hard to believe that someone who works with AI to this degree would think for a moment that it is unbiased. It's an attempt to deceive the ignorant, for whatever purpose.
As someone who has worked in the media industry, I can tell you that the problem with unbiased news goes much deeper than simply presenting facts objectively. The very first step mentioned in your breakdown - scraping the latest headlines from publicly available news sites - is inherently biased, because it relies on a small selection of sources to determine what is considered newsworthy. But by whom? In reality, edi…
Anyone claiming to be unbiased, rather than wearing their biases on their sleeves, is lying to you, or themselves, or they are just ignorant.
Likely some combination of all three.
Doesn't really sound like a news company to me.
Also, while I'm on the topic, "unbiased" news is an anti-pattern. A big part of the value of reporters is synthesizing and contextualizing events. Wikipedia current events[1] is basically unbiased news, but it has a tiny audience (and is still dependent on linking out to actual news organizations).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that major LLMs will happily criticize certain politicians but claim they’re unable to comment on others given equally available training data is a fairly good window into what kind of biases exist within them.
I’ve always wondered why anyone bothers asking ChatGPT these kinds of questions. Where is the utility?
That so deep a bias was discovered so quickly was likely incredibly surprising to some, and incredibly unsurprising to others, but they were asked for the same reason as others - to find out what it does and whether it could be seen as reliable for a source of information
Whee!
As someone who has worked in the media industry, I can tell you that the problem with unbiased news goes much deeper than simply presenting facts objectively. The very first step mentioned in your breakdown - scraping the latest headlines from publicly available news sites - is inherently biased, because it relies on a small selection of sources to determine what is considered newsworthy. But by whom? In reality, edi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This idea punches down. Journalists work so hard to complete the work they do. They do not need this. And as noted elsewhere, AI is not inherently unbiased. In fact, one of the big problems with AI is that it introduces systemic bias, and understanding the role of fairness is very important here. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22916602/ai-bias-fairness... I would also raise the point that journalism is actually m…
This doesn’t replace journalists, it’s just an AI driven link aggregator. That said as others have mentioned, LLVM’s are inherently biased through their training and this site only picks from moderate and left wing sites, bringing into question whether it could ever be unbiased.
Not trying to classify would make choosing sources that are actually representative impossible unless the creator were operating under the illusion that unbiased sources are a thing.
Some of the criticisms are harsh but fair, yet I think that anybody who takes the time to read the "white paper" and acknowledge the admirable dedication to building in the open will see there is genuine potential and passion in this occasionally mad project.
I love the energy and hope the (young) creators won't be too downhearted by the equal passion in some of the negative responses; a good indicator that the valid points about inherent AI and other bias have been listened to will be an updating of some of the language and soundbites used to sell this interesting project.
On a more personal response, I thought the articles I tried were really pretty good in terms of being "free from bias", with the obvious negative corollary that they were rather dry.
Bias is ok, it comes with passion often, it becomes a problem when it's not seen or overwhelms and controls.
The articles were also quite long, which may not be appealing drained of emotion and creativity; I think the At A Glance summaries will prove to be the most valuable. The pictures were mad, I liked them though.
Cool project overall, with the obvious issues noted.
Best of luck going forward!
As someone who has worked in the media industry, I can tell you that the problem with unbiased news goes much deeper than simply presenting facts objectively. The very first step mentioned in your breakdown - scraping the latest headlines from publicly available news sites - is inherently biased, because it relies on a small selection of sources to determine what is considered newsworthy. But by whom? In reality, edi…
1. Information that immediately affects me
2. Information that might affect me
3. Information that doesn't affect me but I still care to know
4. Information that won't affect me
5. Information that won't affect me and I don't care to know
6. Information I don't care to know even if it affects me
Surely there must be a way to monetize information delivery. I would pay for an editorial-less stream of information that is relevant to me, and that isn't that I still want to know.