The Future of Journalism: Replacing Writers and Editors With AI
Not that long ago, it was announced that Microsoft was going to be laying off dozens of journalists and editors in an effort to replace them with AI that would be tasked with doing pretty much the same job.
For Microsoft News and MSN, the artificial intelligence technology would be tasked with sifting through various news reports of the day and finding which ones are gaining the most traction etc, what is most popular, and then reformatting those articles for further sharing.
But sometimes what is trending isn't always going to be what is the most important story of the day. There are many injustices that get reported on that will never see the same media attention that others get. And so further relying on popular opinion to dictate what should be shared, could further degrade the quality of the content that gets found on those platforms. They aren't the only company doing this either, there are others such as the Seattle Times, which have also announced similar plans to use AI for journalist replacement.
Others that have also adopted automated systems for their own content management include Reuters, Bloomberg News, The Associated Press, and the Washington Post.
The artificial intelligence tech that the WP has been using, known as Heliograf, has been able to publish almost 1,000 articles in only one year.
Machines are not immune to making mistakes and it is very easy to assume that they might miss something valuable. Just the same, that they might share something ridiculous or something which violates their own editorial guidelines.
While suggestions for bringing more automation into the industry have been coupled with claims that robots won't be replacing journalists but will be assisting them in helping to get the work done along the way, that gets contradicted when dozens are let go from their jobs as this new technology becomes implemented.
Still, it's estimated that AI is going to help free up time for journalists and reporters etc, about 20 percent or more and gives them more opportunity to engage in other valuable reporting.
Is this trend going to 'help save journalism' today ? Or might it be one more change that is going to further taint the press as we know it, helping lies to flourish and the uncomfortable truth to remain covered up.
Pics:
pixabay
Selecting the more popular and salacious stories is not much different than what journalists already do. In reality, you don't really need AI to do this. Twitter does a fair job of amplifying the outrage of the day.
Original and in-depth journalism will likely go the Patreon way.
There is no journalism.
It is, and for a long time has only been, about controlling the narrative.
So, an AI is quite easy to write, it just has to use certain key trigger words in a word salad.
No news or information really has to be conveyed.
Besides, most pieces published in the "news" are carefully crafted by the corporations that benefit from the news. They are just advertisements masquerading as news. Being able to blame this, if ever called out, on an AI will be totally great scape goat.
It is hard for me to trust the articles or actions of the Washington Post after Amazon purchased them. There just seems to be zero reason why Amazon needs to get involved with news aside from influencing public opinion.
This is an interesting topic, and we need to be discussing options for journalism, as it is currently a bad situation. Thanks for the post.
More and more jobs are at risk, AI would be easier to control to complete their agenda
Hmmmm. There is quite debatable. Sometimes it is the human factor which makes an article a good article. The soul, passion and feeling put into writing. Something which can't be figured out in an algorythm.
Who controls the accuracy of AI? On what basis they select the sources?
Journalism to the core will always put a person behind a story.