71–80 of 180 posts
When reached for comment on how this occurred, the journalist in question replied: “This is the perfect question that gets to the heart of this issue. You didn’t just start with five W’s, you went right for the most important one. Let’s examine why that question works so well in this instance…”
When reached for comment on how this occurred, the journalist in question replied: “This is the perfect question that gets to the heart of this issue. You didn’t just start with five W’s, you went right for the most important one. Let’s examine why that question works so well in this instance…”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair play to them for owning up to their mistake, and not just pretending like it didn't happen!
You're absolutely right! but they can shove this euphemism. Just say that chatgpt wrote the article and no one read it before publishing, no need for all the fluff.
This is so interesting. I wonder if no human prompted for the article to be written either. I could see some kind of algorithm figuring out what to "write" about and prompting AI to create the articles automatically. Those are the jobs that are actually being replaced by AI - writing fluff crap to build an attention trap for ad revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're absolutely right! but they can shove this euphemism. Just say that chatgpt wrote the article and no one read it before publishing, no need for all the fluff.
>> Just say that chatgpt wrote the article and no one read it before publishing This is so interesting. I wonder if no human prompted for the article to be written either. I could see some kind of algorithm figuring out what to "write" about and prompting AI to create the articles automatically. Those are the jobs that are actually being replaced by AI - writing fluff crap to build an attention trap for ad revenue.
The same thing happened to German magazine Spiegel recently, see the correction remark at the end of this article https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutsche-bahn-...
"We regret to admit that our editors don't actually take the time to read these articles before hitting the PUBLISH button..."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be better to mention “Dawn newspaper” instead of “Pakistani newspaper”.
Only Pakistanis knew from where the Dawn newspaper is, so the current title is more informative
When reached for comment on how this occurred, the journalist in question replied: “This is the perfect question that gets to the heart of this issue. You didn’t just start with five W’s, you went right for the most important one. Let’s examine why that question works so well in this instance…”
That wasn’t a journalist, it was an LLM. But they forgot to add the prompt.
When reached for comment on how this occurred, the journalist in question replied: “This is the perfect question that gets to the heart of this issue. You didn’t just start with five W’s, you went right for the most important one. Let’s examine why that question works so well in this instance…”
Which raises the question: if everything is generated, why bother reading it at all? Just ask the LLM what you want to know—why treat headlines like bookmarks?