Am I the only one who reads this and gets the takeaway of: "Journalist realizes he was on the wrong side of defending a special interest group against the greater good via lack of due diligence, tries to backpedal and paint himself in a positive light via 'learnings'"
I think I'd be less cynical if they had done less to bury the lede deep in the midst of the article, and not once mention "due diligence," let alone as the crux or conclusion that I took as the real Root Cause here.
To me this isn't a story about AI. This is "just another" story of how readily public decision making can be swayed by biased special interests and an uninformed media/electorate.
The author should be praised for revisiting the topic, being upfront about their change in stance and trying to close the loop on it; but I think I am seeing the problem space from a very different angle than they are.
I think I'd be less cynical if they had done less to bury the lede deep in the midst of the article, and not once mention "due diligence," let alone as the crux or conclusion that I took as the real Root Cause here.
To me this isn't a story about AI. This is "just another" story of how readily public decision making can be swayed by biased special interests and an uninformed media/electorate.
The author should be praised for revisiting the topic, being upfront about their change in stance and trying to close the loop on it; but I think I am seeing the problem space from a very different angle than they are.