>Multiple companies have toyed with the idea of using AI to generate stories, all of whom have been widely panned for the decision. G/O Media (which operates Gizmodo and Kotaku) attempted it earlier this year, the result of which was error-riddled pieces and widespread pushback from its staff. The company plans to move forward with AI authors despite this. Gannett, which operates USA Today, also attempted it but pulled back after it resulted in “botched” coverage of high school sports. More recently, Sports Illustrated was accused of the practice, a decision that resulted in widespread derision and the firing of its CEO.
all that matters is attracting $USER to $PLATFORM at a rate which minimizes $COST_OF_CONTENT_PRODUCTION to a point where it is below $INCOME_PER_USER. none of these "news outlets" have any integrity, they might back off of AI but they've already demonstrated that they'll publish anything that drives viewership. This also calls into question the legitimacy of human-written content published by these "news outlets" because whatever ideals journalism may have aspired to in the past no longer exist (if they ever even existed in the past).
all that matters is attracting $USER to $PLATFORM at a rate which minimizes $COST_OF_CONTENT_PRODUCTION to a point where it is below $INCOME_PER_USER. none of these "news outlets" have any integrity, they might back off of AI but they've already demonstrated that they'll publish anything that drives viewership. This also calls into question the legitimacy of human-written content published by these "news outlets" because whatever ideals journalism may have aspired to in the past no longer exist (if they ever even existed in the past).