111–120 of 142 posts
Here is the template to write a news article... State some facts as reported by others (never link to supporting documents only summarize them) Quote from expert or eyewitness on why this is important Quote from other expert why this might not be important (optional as this might make the story not truly news worthy) State that confusing aspects of the story are "unclear" Fill the rest of the story from articles on t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How many humans do you want employed as butter churners? I think that's the wrong question. The better question is how can be ensure that people aren't just out of work and can still be able to afford to live?
They shouldn't. They should go work in a different industry. The butter churners didn't just die, they became professionals doing something else.
People often adapt when big changes come to their industries. They don’t adapt when their entire livelihoods disappear. LLMs look to have the potential to do this not just to a segment of one part of the economy in some regions, but to the entire knowledge economy the world over.
I’d love to hear somebody try to explain how this won’t negatively impact the labor market for journalists. My guess is that the argument will be that the “tools will simply help augment rather than replace the writer.” We know, however, that some small segment of implementations will actually in fact, cause someone to be fired or replaced, and things will get slightly worse for the consumer. An alternative explanati…
If this requires AI, so be it. I will pay for it.
Here is the template to write a news article... State some facts as reported by others (never link to supporting documents only summarize them) Quote from expert or eyewitness on why this is important Quote from other expert why this might not be important (optional as this might make the story not truly news worthy) State that confusing aspects of the story are "unclear" Fill the rest of the story from articles on t…
I’d love to hear somebody try to explain how this won’t negatively impact the labor market for journalists. My guess is that the argument will be that the “tools will simply help augment rather than replace the writer.” We know, however, that some small segment of implementations will actually in fact, cause someone to be fired or replaced, and things will get slightly worse for the consumer. An alternative explanati…
People seem to be confusing composition with journalism. Journalism is what happens before an article is composed, and this system does nothing resembling original research or fact finding.
This conflation is a critical flaw of reasoning. It will increase the tendency of so-called journalists hitting the "write copy using AI" button to spew out content. It will not, cannot, and should not replace critical thinking skills, interviews, or research. I'm curious how this was pitched by Google and the thinking of newsroom management. Tools should augment and automate mechanic work such as an enhanced LexisNexis search, not substitute or delegate human expertise.
At some point, without necessarily donning a tin foil hat, we ought to reflect on the possibility of computing power and automation misusing ability beyond the filter bubble of selective "resharing" for user persuasion to the realm of generative faux organizations, personalities, and content. Elaborate digital hallucinations intent on gaslighting and arguing with users individually.
https://whatsthefuckingnews.com
Ironic when they shadow ban AI articles. I've written articles using 90% AI, ranked the same day for keywords, then they've disappeared the next day.
There is no fingerprint or smoking gun in textual prose to distinguish between bullshit human writers and generative AI.
If we wished to prove humans are behind content, then we should all be posting pictures of today's newspaper with the handwritten message we intended to convey. Imagine how much less shit social media would contain if that were the barrier to hitting the "post" button.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>well The writing wasn’t very good anyway, it was all a regurgitation of the same thing over and over anyways well, yes. you clearly understand the problem, but stating it dismissively doesn't refute it. paying people to do minimal rewrites of press releases or wire service articles is not productive work. at all. people would be better served by reading the original source. a job that requires no skill and provides…
" it's just a selectively-applied welfare program, disproportionately provided to the people with the best connections. putting a stop to those sorts of "jobs" is not a bad thing." As long as you have somewhere else to put them...or else they will go on another type of welfare program where they don't have to do any work. That is the issue here...