Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our newsroom AI policy

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 144 posts

Re: Our newsroom AI policy

#111

Post by zby »

legitster wrote: post #4

AI is in danger of peeing in it's own water source. It's unbelievably useful at imitating and generating content, but it needs enough original content to be able to train and scrape. Google got one thing wrong and nearly destroyed the internet - people need to have an incentive to contribute content online, and that incentive should not be to game the system for advertising. This in particular dawned on me when askin…

There were a couple of proposals for compensating authors in similar manner - there is a wikipedia page on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_alternatives - but it somehow does not mention the one that was most pro-sharing - the Creative Contribution by Philippe Aigrain https://www.jstor.org/content/oa_book_monograph/j.ctt46mvx8

Re: Our newsroom AI policy

#112

Post by applfanboysbgon »

bredren wrote: post #108
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #8

Self-contradictory policy. > Reporters may use AI tools vetted and approved for our workflow to assist with research, including navigating large volumes of material, summarizing background documents, and searching datasets. If this is their official policy, Ars Technica bears as much responsibility as the author they fired for the fabricated reporting. LLMs are terrible at accurately summarizing anything. They very r…

> ...this is equivalent to providing all of your employees with a flamethrower, and then saying they bear all responsibility for the fires they start. This is essentially the policy of most SWE groups but with PRs merged, though right? You can / should use AI to accelerate SWE workflows and assist in reviews but if you merge something that is bad or breaks production that is on you. > "Hey, don't blame us for giving…

The way LLMs are being forced upon the workforce in tech is just as bad, actually, yes.

> Flamethrowers are inherently dangerous to the operator and are ~intended to be used burn things to the ground.

I actually think bringing up this point reinforces the analogy rather than undercutting it. LLMs are ~intended to spread disinformation, eg. Deepseek on 1989, Grok going full Mecha-Hitler, ChatGPT selling out prompts to advertisers. One of the biggest impacts LLMs will have on human society is as a propaganda tool with a reach of billions.

Re: Our newsroom AI policy

#114

Post by palmotea »

intended wrote: post #102
palmotea wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd argue that this is something that is more about the state of play, than tech itself. What do you mean by that? It seems inherent to the technology under capitalism: it allows a flood of slop and anything public and valuable will be plundered, so the incentive is to make valuable stuff exclusive and elite.

I mean that > inherent to the technology Vs > inherent to the technology under capitalism The TLDR of my point is going to be that wealth concentration and information pollution sets up economies that don’t work for us in a manner that is healthy for us.

> The TLDR of my point is going to be that wealth concentration and information pollution sets up economies that don’t work for us in a manner that is healthy for us.

I agree. Though I think it's important to understand that a capitalist economy serves wealth, and nothing else. It's depressing, but I think it's more likely we'll have a genocide of workers than any kind of non-capitalist economy, since modern advances are simultaneously entrenching the power of elites and sapping it from everyone else. Even if you could overcome fragmentation and manage to organize a general strike, the trillionaires won't care because it's robots and thoroughly indoctrinated libertarians doing the remaining work.

Re: Our newsroom AI policy

#115

Post by justonceokay »

totetsu wrote: post #94
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #8

Self-contradictory policy. > Reporters may use AI tools vetted and approved for our workflow to assist with research, including navigating large volumes of material, summarizing background documents, and searching datasets. If this is their official policy, Ars Technica bears as much responsibility as the author they fired for the fabricated reporting. LLMs are terrible at accurately summarizing anything. They very r…

Is this a case of Moral crumple zones? where "responsibility for an action may be misattributed to a human actor who had limited control over the behavior" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351054898_Moral_Cru...

Sidebar I like “moral crumple zone” much more than “moral hazard” just because it conjures up a much clearer picture of the problem it depicts.

Re: Our newsroom AI policy

#116

Post by GorbachevyChase »

halhen wrote: post #89
Aurornis wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, mostly to fraudulent AI spam? Most of Spotify’s payments do not go to fraudulent AI spam. I am aware that AI spam exists on the platform and I’ve read the articles, too. That does not mean that “most” of their payments go to AI spam. Their pay scales by listens. The AI spam doesn’t collect many listens. The spammers do it because they can automate it and make it low effort, but it’s not a cash cow for the spamm…

An interesting listen https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/171/ about money laundering and spam in streaming services

I find that very believable. My completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory is that OnlyFans is a money-laundering and dragnet-style-blackmail campaign for unlawful mass surveillance. I can’t imagine a normal or even abnormal person paying content makers, but I could imagine contractors and NGOs smurfing payments.

Re: Our newsroom AI policy

#117

Post by [deleted] »

GorbachevyChase wrote: post #116
halhen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting listen https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/171/ about money laundering and spam in streaming services

I find that very believable. My completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory is that OnlyFans is a money-laundering and dragnet-style-blackmail campaign for unlawful mass surveillance. I can’t imagine a normal or even abnormal person paying content makers, but I could imagine contractors and NGOs smurfing payments.

[deleted]

Re: Our newsroom AI policy

#119

Post by themeiguoren »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21

Context: "An AI agent of unknown ownership autonomously wrote and published a personalized hit piece about me after I rejected its code, attempting to damage my reputation and shame me into accepting its changes into a mainstream python library. ... I’ve talked to several reporters, and quite a few news outlets have covered the story. Ars Technica wasn’t one of the ones that reached out to me, but I especially though…

[dead]
Post reply on HN