Live data from Hacker News

Our newsroom AI policy

arstechnica.com

141–144 of 144 posts

Re: Our newsroom AI policy

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a friend who pays (or at least paid) for cam shows. I don't understand it either because there's so much free content, but then you have cases like the guy who murdered his parents because he'd sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to a cam performer who he thought he was in love with.[0] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Amato

And of course it's a Florida Man. There's got to be something in the water over there

> The Miami New Times claimed that freedom of information laws in Florida make it easier for journalists to acquire information about arrests from the police than in other states and that this is responsible for a large number of news articles.[3] A CNN article on the meme also suggested that the breadth of reports of bizarre activities is due to a confluence of factors, including public records laws giving journalists fast and easy access to police reports, the relatively high population of the state, its highly variable weather, and gaps in mental health funding.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Man

Re: Our newsroom AI policy

#142
The deeper issue isn’t whether AI should be used, but whether the tool keeps the human in control of the output. A reporter who dictates directly into a story, and can correct mid-sentence without stopping, is still fully authoring the piece. The AI is basically just faster typing. Compare that with an AI that generates a quote summary and the journalist reviews it. Now the AI is making calls about what matters, and the human is reduced to an editor instead of the primary author. The policy distinction that actually matters is "AI assists the human" versus "the human verifies AI output".

Re: Our newsroom AI policy

#143

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…

These sentences are directly contradictory. How does a user of Ars' AI tools use summaries in their research and at the same time not use them?

> summarizing background documents

> AI tools must not be used to generate, extract, or summarize material that is then attributed to a named source,

Re: Our newsroom AI policy

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most labs actively create synthetic data using existing model as part of the mix for the pretraining stage for their next model. Would love to know exactly what the latest process is to keep slop out of training data.

I think everyone overblows the whole "AI is poisoning AI!" thing. It could be a problem but the genuine value in Reddit or any other human social media is honestly pretty low from my estimates. It's great for seeing how humans talk but in terms of 'nutritional' value for truth or answers... I am not sold. If I was choosing what to 'feed' AI, I wouldn't even bother with textual social media (besides Github / Gitlab /…

> genuine value in Reddit or any other human social media

Kind of a steep slope to convince me that Reddit has a higher P/E ratio than Nvidia because of its authentic content… Reddit seems extremely overvalued because it is a network of people programmed to accept whatever they see and engage.

No doubt that there is good information there, discord too.

But Reddit is far more bots and “organic propaganda” than you are thinking.

Post reply on HN