11–20 of 28 posts
the owner is gannett. the butchered coverage was in local newspapers, also owned by gannett. which begs the question, why doesn’t the headline just, you know, name gannett? edit: anyone downvoting care to indicate why? it seems rather pertinent to name the owner, given the scale, and the potential impact of using such technology at scale.
the owner is gannett. the butchered coverage was in local newspapers, also owned by gannett. which begs the question, why doesn’t the headline just, you know, name gannett? edit: anyone downvoting care to indicate why? it seems rather pertinent to name the owner, given the scale, and the potential impact of using such technology at scale.
I generally downvote complaints about the title of articles. (I don't downvote requests to change the title on HN though.)
do you know of gannett? legitimately curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Lots of people do a lot of reading for a living. Reading a new article is way more interesting than thousands of jobs I can think of. Data analysts and accountants literally pour though millions of featureless numbers over their career, why would this be any different?
It's like trying to find typos in your own writing. It's very difficult to stay focused when reading a long series of nearly identical documents. The people you're talking about are reading a lot of novel documents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory, but I think the problem you'd find in practice is that reviewing 100s of nearly-identical AI-written articles gets very boring very quickly, and a lot of errors would slip through.
Why? Lots of people do a lot of reading for a living. Reading a new article is way more interesting than thousands of jobs I can think of. Data analysts and accountants literally pour though millions of featureless numbers over their career, why would this be any different?
The numbers are probably meaningful to them due to their education though.
It’s like saying programmers spend their whole career pour though millions of lines of nigh random symbols they call source code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like trying to find typos in your own writing. It's very difficult to stay focused when reading a long series of nearly identical documents. The people you're talking about are reading a lot of novel documents.
Why would these be identical? New stories everyday, new games played etc.
> One article even failed to populate properly, with the text instead featuring a bracketed glimpse at how its opening sentence was supposed to read.
> "The Worthington Christian [[WINNING_TEAM_MASCOT]] defeated the Westerville North [[LOSING_TEAM_MASCOT]] 2-1 in an Ohio boys soccer game on Saturday," reads the butchered intro.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I generally downvote complaints about the title of articles. (I don't downvote requests to change the title on HN though.)
there was a bit more to my comment than a “this title is bad.” do you know of gannett? legitimately curious.
I've never heard of Gannet before today.
I don't really mean much by the downvote. It's a personal pet peeve of mine when people comment on the headline, and I think it's against the spirit of this part of the guidelines:
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
My downvote definitely didn't mean that I didn't think there was something substantive to say about Gannet's involvement, or that I disagreed.
(The guidelines also tell us not to talk about voting, which I'm breaking of course, but I do try to respond when people genuinely want to know why I voted a certain way. I understand why that part of the guidelines exist, but I have mixed feelings about it, I don't see how else people are meant to know why they were downvoted.)
I'm surprised it failed this hard. AI writing has been used for a while in fantasy sports platforms for a while to put in little quips about player performances based on their recent stats and automated projections and read pretty well.
the owner is gannett. the butchered coverage was in local newspapers, also owned by gannett. which begs the question, why doesn’t the headline just, you know, name gannett? edit: anyone downvoting care to indicate why? it seems rather pertinent to name the owner, given the scale, and the potential impact of using such technology at scale.