this is metalanguage
AI fake news complaining about how AI fake news is the death of real news
31–40 of 70 posts
Re: AI fake news complaining about how AI fake news is the death of real news
#32[deleted]
Re: AI fake news complaining about how AI fake news is the death of real news
#33Could we figure out ways to 'punish' the real people behind operations like this that flood the internet with fake crap? Name & shame.
Contribute to enshittify the internet -> have your real-life reputation, finances, career prospects etc negatively affected. Same if it's nation states.
As it stands, people could pull this crap 100s of times, while still profiting financially and look like operating a respectable ad agency / consultancy / whatever business.
Re: AI fake news complaining about how AI fake news is the death of real news
#34I constantly wonder what is the societal benefits of AI It’s really hard to build a coherent pro-AI argument
You can at the local level.
I thought this piece was realistic and hopeful:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/06/ai-open-ai-anthrop...
I can't control how the world uses AI, but my family and friends have been using it to start new businesses, finally resolve some long-term medical mysteries, and plan trips they wouldn't have otherwise.
Re: AI fake news complaining about how AI fake news is the death of real news
#35The death of real news, at least in the United States, was money and venture capital. AI is just one thing attempting to fill the gap. There hasn't been real news in America for a decade or more. It happened well before AI was on the scene.
To me, there is no difference between AI fake news, podcasts as news, influencers "informing", or celebrity talking heads streaming commentary about current events. Its all garbage. Whether OpenAI computers make it up, or a podcaster presents their opinion as fact, the result is the same. We are all susceptible to being influenced by it as if it were news.
Re: AI fake news complaining about how AI fake news is the death of real news
#36This is a great read. It would appear https://theeditorial.news is "Under Construction" now. The articles themselves [1] were originally super creepy when you know the entire thing is made up. > Michelle Quaid is fifty-two years old, the mother of two grown children, and she began working at the Commercial-News in 1999 > Quaid wore a polo shirt with the paper's logo — a stylized 'C' — over her heart. She's not real!…
[flagged]
Both sides! Both sides!
Re: AI fake news complaining about how AI fake news is the death of real news
#37I constantly wonder what is the societal benefits of AI It’s really hard to build a coherent pro-AI argument
You can at the local level. I thought this piece was realistic and hopeful: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/06/ai-open-ai-anthrop... I can't control how the world uses AI, but my family and friends have been using it to start new businesses, finally resolve some long-term medical mysteries, and plan trips they wouldn't have otherwise.
finally resolve some long-term medical mysteries
Re: AI fake news complaining about how AI fake news is the death of real news
#38The death of real news, at least in the United States, was money and venture capital. AI is just one thing attempting to fill the gap. There hasn't been real news in America for a decade or more. It happened well before AI was on the scene. To me, there is no difference between AI fake news, podcasts as news, influencers "informing", or celebrity talking heads streaming commentary about current events. Its all garbag…
“Money and venture capital” is an easy to swallow pill that helps satiate the desire for a bad guy, but it ignores the fact that there is no mechanism by which an upstanding journalist can put food on the table.
There was a brief period where information was difficult to copy and distribute without exposing one’s self to liability for copyright infringement, and the barrier to access that information was high enough such that you could convince people to pay you. Neither of those dynamics apply today.
Re: AI fake news complaining about how AI fake news is the death of real news
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is like when some fella named Nobel synthesized dynamite. He sure did have good intentions as it relates to safety for workers doing dangerous jobs. There is your “pro” argument. The “con” argument would be all the other ways dynamite has been twisted and used since. This AI stuff is neither good or bad, it is a tool. The people using it are either good or bad.
“drunk driving kills a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so it’s impossible to say whether it’s bad or not”
> “drunk driving kills a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so it’s impossible to say whether it’s bad or not”
No, no that doesn't work. Nobody thinks that.
"Drunk people who do it think that!"
You framed your comment as a 3rd party, not the idiot driving drunk, the above 'argument' doesn't hold water.
Re: AI fake news complaining about how AI fake news is the death of real news
#40The death of real news, at least in the United States, was money and venture capital. AI is just one thing attempting to fill the gap. There hasn't been real news in America for a decade or more. It happened well before AI was on the scene. To me, there is no difference between AI fake news, podcasts as news, influencers "informing", or celebrity talking heads streaming commentary about current events. Its all garbag…
>>money and venture capital
Yes, this.
I used to think AI news summaries would kill it, but having tried Kagi news (first impressions as a daily driver for a week), I no longer think so, particularly because Kagi are doing everything right.
Nearly everything I could think of is in there, yet it still feels unsatisfying and oddly less informative (perhaps because I'm less engaged?). Kagi builds a summary from multiple sources, cites the sources, and extracts various impacts/angles (business, technical, industry, historical, etc.) and different party reactions, etc., and more. Yet...
I really don't know what it is and I'll have to use it more to try to identify it. My current conjecture is that it is still more satisfying and informative to read a reporter's view of the event, even if I disagree with it, than a homogenized summary.
I'm also finding similar reactions to articles where I can tell parts are just lifted from the AI — it breaks my engagement with the story/report (kind of like a badly done cinema film breaks my suspension of disbelief and disengages my attention from the story).