2 ms·

That's a clickbait headline that isn't appropriate for the article, the original is "The Guardian’s approach to generative AI". They seem to be only using it i

That's a clickbait headline that isn't appropriate for the article, the original is "The Guardian’s approach to generative AI". They seem to be only using it in the background - "helping journalists interrogate large data sets, assisting colleagues through corrections or suggestions, creating ideas for marketing campaigns, or reducing the bureaucracy of time-consuming business processes" If and when they use editorially, the seem to be checking and moderating with human oversight and "will be open with readers" when they do so

mysterydip 3y ago
Does that mean they might do something like "hey chatgpt, what percent of people think x has the right policy on y?" and then just publish it as a factual survey?
safety1st 3y ago
Which is totally fine. I know several professional journalists, I even happen to employ (a former) one. None of them are using GenAI to write their articles. To help with research, topic idea and generation, maybe getting some options for how to rewrite a passage or headline, yes. All great, used right it helps them be more efficient and improves the end result. I have a very amateur background in journalism myself (edited my college and high school newspapers, took a class or two). I can smell excessive ChatGPT abuse on an article. It's like how good devs can smell bad code. ChatGPT tends to write articles which regurgitate popular viewpoints from the Internet in an equivocating way that isn't very engaging and contains no unique insights. In other words it's not output that most professional newsrooms would want to publish, it doesn't hook anybody (at least not yet). Current generative models also handle current events poorly. The Guardian are quite good at what they do and abusing e.g. ChatGPT would dilute their brand.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  > None of them are using GenAI to write their articles. Too bad, that would probably be an improvement

mysterydip 3y ago

Does that mean they might do something like "hey chatgpt, what percent of people think x has the right policy on y?" and then just publish it as a factual survey?

safety1st 3y ago

Which is totally fine. I know several professional journalists, I even happen to employ (a former) one. None of them are using GenAI to write their articles. To help with research, topic idea and generation, maybe getting some options for how to rewrite a passage or headline, yes. All great, used right it helps them be more efficient and improves the end result. I have a very amateur background in journalism myself (edited my college and high school newspapers, took a class or two). I can smell excessive ChatGPT abuse on an article. It's like how good devs can smell bad code. ChatGPT tends to write articles which regurgitate popular viewpoints from the Internet in an equivocating way that isn't very engaging and contains no unique insights. In other words it's not output that most professional newsrooms would want to publish, it doesn't hook anybody (at least not yet). Current generative models also handle current events poorly. The Guardian are quite good at what they do and abusing e.g. ChatGPT would dilute their brand.

ekianjo 3y ago
> None of them are using GenAI to write their articles. Too bad, that would probably be an improvement