AI and current journalism standards

His last point is what I am most concerned with in terms of media and journalism. What is the source? Who is to say it is correct? It could work with at least a human editor, but to just blindly take AI info seems to be a big risk to me. And we did do a few AI stories while I was editor, to experiment and to make the one owner who loves AI happy, and as I said a little earlier I had to make one pretty big correction one time and that was with editing it. Seems so risky, but that's just me.

 

Roscablo, dunno, I've seen a lot of phantom positions and it makes me think those writing jobs are not legit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_job

 

That should put a lot of unemployed copy editors back to work. They did that with humans.

 

He’s certainly right about water use (for AI and data storage centers in general).

A lot of those are sited in desert areas of the West, and as NPR reported, the average data center uses about 300,000 gallons of water a day to keep cool. That’s roughly equivalent to the water used in 100,000 homes.

 

HanSENSE-

AI's the next industrial revolution.

 

AI is good enough to work for The Plain Dealer, errrrrr, Cleveland.com:

 

At least they included a tag that it is AI and was edited by a person. Really if every place that used AI as real content did this there wouldn't be as many questions about its use.

 

Poor Ace.

 

Would there be time for the copyeditors to rewrite every story? Or have they been re-trained to not do their jobs very well.

 

This is a whole other issue. My experience with AI so far, though, is it does need an editor. Maybe one day that won't be the case, but kind of doubt it will ever be perfect. So in the sense that the Plain Dealer is using AI but is upfront about it is good I guess. How they decide to use their actual personnel to get that stuff published is left to be seen.

 

Some places still employ copy editors?

 

Sequenced in my Twitter / X feed this morning: