That’s literally the same argument that’s been made for every tech advancement in history.
I’m happy to entertain specific problems with THIS tech, but keeping people doing a job that doesn’t actually require a human is no different than having people dig a ditch and then fill it back in repeatedly.
Proper journalists are massively different than ditch diggers.
One cannot have a closed loop of AI as a newspaper. At least, not for another 50 years until the language models acquire enough subtly. Even then, I ain’t gonna read that shit. I want a human take on human problems.
It’s not having AI write fiction, the information still needs to come from journalists. The AI will almost certainly just be used to speed up the writing and editing process, which will save them money by requiring fewer people in those roles.
Righto. All the humans are fired eh? Great. I’m sure that lead to some wonderful outcomes.
That’s literally the same argument that’s been made for every tech advancement in history.
I’m happy to entertain specific problems with THIS tech, but keeping people doing a job that doesn’t actually require a human is no different than having people dig a ditch and then fill it back in repeatedly.
Proper journalists are massively different than ditch diggers.
One cannot have a closed loop of AI as a newspaper. At least, not for another 50 years until the language models acquire enough subtly. Even then, I ain’t gonna read that shit. I want a human take on human problems.
It’s not having AI write fiction, the information still needs to come from journalists. The AI will almost certainly just be used to speed up the writing and editing process, which will save them money by requiring fewer people in those roles.
“Save money”
Ssshhh! Do you smell death? I smell death.