AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time
1–10 of 306 posts
Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time
#2[flagged]
Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time
#3Yeah I don't know why people pay attention to those things, in terms of accuracy you might as well give your uncle 5 or 6 beers and tell him to just go off.
Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time
#4[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time
#5Now let's run this experiment against the editorial boards in newsrooms.
Obviously, AI isn't an improvement, but people who blindly trust the news have always been credulous rubes. It's just that the alternative is being completely ignorant of the worldviews of everyone around you.
Peer-reviewed science is as close as we can get to good consensus and there's a lot of reasons this doesn't work for reporting.
Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time
#6Now let's run this experiment against the editorial boards in newsrooms. Obviously, AI isn't an improvement, but people who blindly trust the news have always been credulous rubes. It's just that the alternative is being completely ignorant of the worldviews of everyone around you. Peer-reviewed science is as close as we can get to good consensus and there's a lot of reasons this doesn't work for reporting.
I guess the claim is not that rubes did not used to exist, but rather that technology is increasingly encouraging and streamlining rubism.
Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time
#7[flagged]
Relatedly, I wonder if we count misrepresenting a misleading news article such that it becomes more-accurate as misrepresenting news content…
Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time
#8Now let's run this experiment against the editorial boards in newsrooms. Obviously, AI isn't an improvement, but people who blindly trust the news have always been credulous rubes. It's just that the alternative is being completely ignorant of the worldviews of everyone around you. Peer-reviewed science is as close as we can get to good consensus and there's a lot of reasons this doesn't work for reporting.
Yep.
How could a candidate who yelling "Fake News" like an idiot get elected? Because of the state of journalism.
How could people turn to AI slop? Because of the state of human slop.
Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time
#9> 45% of all AI answers had at least one significant issue.
> 31% of responses showed serious sourcing problems – missing, misleading, or incorrect attributions.
> 20% contained major accuracy issues, including hallucinated details and outdated information.
I'm generally against whataboutism, but here I think we absolutely have to compare it to human-written news reports. Famously, Michael Crichton introduced the "Gell-Mann amnesia effect" [0], saying:
> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
This has absolutely been my experience. I couldn't find proper figures, but I would put good money on significantly over 45% of articles written in human-written news articles having "at least one significant issue".
Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time
#10Only 45%? That seems low from my experience.