3 ms·

Aside from the one sentence about Amazon "racing to shake off the perception that it is lagging behind [in AI]", the article: * Lists the features of Q as desc

Aside from the one sentence about Amazon "racing to shake off the perception that it is lagging behind [in AI]", the article: * Lists the features of Q as described by Amazon, without commentary. * Exclusively and uncritically quotes an Amazon executive. * Mentions other, competing products only as a lead-in to how Q is allegedly superior, without any substantive comparison. * Was published only a couple hours after Amazon's actual press release[1], so it's not like the NYT had time to do any real work. * Briefly mentions other AI-related Amazon activities announced in other press releases today[2], again without commentary. * Features no third-party expertise or independent research to provide context for the core claim, which is that addressing security and privacy concerns will convince organizations to allow chatbots to access their data, and (critically) that it is feasible for Amazon to provide this feature. * Makes no mention of why it might have taken Amazon longer than other companies to announce an AI product, which is the only interesting context they provided in this article. Of course it's not literally a press release. But it's not much else, either. I guess that's what passes for business news. The best argument against calling this article a press release is that it misses the key message of the actual PR, which is that Q is supposed to help people use all the complicated AWS features. [1] https://press.aboutamazon.com/2023/11/aws-announces-amazon-q-to-reimagine-the-future-of-work https://press.aboutamazon.com/2023/11/aws-announces-amazon-q... [2] https://press.aboutamazon.com/2023/11/aws-and-nvidia-announce-strategic-collaboration-to-offer-new-supercomputing-infrastructure-software-and-services-for-generative-ai https://press.aboutamazon.com/2023/11/aws-and-nvidia-announc...

crazygringo 3y ago
Like you said, it came out a couple of hours after Amazon's announcement. So it's basic, timely reporting of news. The product isn't out yet, so there isn't much more to add. Beyond the general context, there isn't any "substantive comparison" that anyone can make yet. I still don't understand what you want. You think the NYT just shouldn't report the announcement and its context in a timely manner at all? Or you expect it to achieve this impossible task of a bunch of substantive analysis from third parties when nobody's gotten a chance to use it yet? The way the news works is, important breaking news gets announced quickly with basic context -- exactly the way this story is. Then, after people try something out and there are actually reactions to report on, a deeper "analysis" story tends to come out. But publishing breaking news isn't publishing a "press release". And it's disingenuous to conflate the two. Do you really think the NYT shouldn't publish any news except for full analysis articles that take days to research and write?
- AdamH12113 3y ago
  > I still don't understand what you want. You think the NYT just shouldn't report the announcement and its context in a timely manner at all? If they report on it, it should be brief and include a link to the primary source. (Compare to this[1] article on an Israeli-Palestinian hostage exchange announcement, which is both shorter and higher-quality.) At most, this article should have been 3-4 paragraphs long, not 15. I don't understand what you think the benefit is of a major newspaper being a breathless stenographer for corporate press releases. Who benefits from having a shoddy copy-and-paste article today instead of a much better article tomorrow? Why does unverified marketing copy from Amazon qualify as "important"? Why does "timely" have to mean "right now, before we even have a chance to read the announcement properly"? That's not news, it's entertainment. If you want your "news" to be entertainment, that's your choice, I guess. I am reminded of Googling for information on monitors and finding "reviews" that just list the bullet points from the marketing pamphlets. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/world/middleeast/hamas-hostages-released-israel.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/world/middleeast/hamas-ho...
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    The link you provided isn't to an article, it's to a special "live updates" feed. And no, this is an article for the general public, not people who follow Amazon closely. 15 paragraphs provides the context. I don't understand -- first you're complaining there isn't enough context, now you're complaining there's too much? > Who benefits from having a shoddy copy-and-paste article today instead of a much better article tomorrow? Literally everyone who checks the news every couple of hours for what's happening in the business world? The news cycle is every couple of hours now, like it or not. It's been that way for many years now. And there probably won't be a better article tomorrow anyways because it takes much longer than that to evaluate a brand-new produc that nobody has even used yet. And it's still not "shoddy copy-and-paste". It is providing actual context and explanation. It was a perfectly fine, normal article. Your criticism makes no sense. You want something shorter with less context or something longer with more analysis but not something in-between? Sometimes in-between is the right size for what's currently known about a story. And that's good, normal, everyday news reporting. (And nothing to do with "entertainment".)

crazygringo 3y ago

Like you said, it came out a couple of hours after Amazon's announcement. So it's basic, timely reporting of news. The product isn't out yet, so there isn't much more to add. Beyond the general context, there isn't any "substantive comparison" that anyone can make yet. I still don't understand what you want. You think the NYT just shouldn't report the announcement and its context in a timely manner at all? Or you expect it to achieve this impossible task of a bunch of substantive analysis from third parties when nobody's gotten a chance to use it yet? The way the news works is, important breaking news gets announced quickly with basic context -- exactly the way this story is. Then, after people try something out and there are actually reactions to report on, a deeper "analysis" story tends to come out. But publishing breaking news isn't publishing a "press release". And it's disingenuous to conflate the two. Do you really think the NYT shouldn't publish any news except for full analysis articles that take days to research and write?

AdamH12113 3y ago
> I still don't understand what you want. You think the NYT just shouldn't report the announcement and its context in a timely manner at all? If they report on it, it should be brief and include a link to the primary source. (Compare to this[1] article on an Israeli-Palestinian hostage exchange announcement, which is both shorter and higher-quality.) At most, this article should have been 3-4 paragraphs long, not 15. I don't understand what you think the benefit is of a major newspaper being a breathless stenographer for corporate press releases. Who benefits from having a shoddy copy-and-paste article today instead of a much better article tomorrow? Why does unverified marketing copy from Amazon qualify as "important"? Why does "timely" have to mean "right now, before we even have a chance to read the announcement properly"? That's not news, it's entertainment. If you want your "news" to be entertainment, that's your choice, I guess. I am reminded of Googling for information on monitors and finding "reviews" that just list the bullet points from the marketing pamphlets. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/world/middleeast/hamas-hostages-released-israel.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/world/middleeast/hamas-ho...
- crazygringo 3y ago
  The link you provided isn't to an article, it's to a special "live updates" feed. And no, this is an article for the general public, not people who follow Amazon closely. 15 paragraphs provides the context. I don't understand -- first you're complaining there isn't enough context, now you're complaining there's too much? > Who benefits from having a shoddy copy-and-paste article today instead of a much better article tomorrow? Literally everyone who checks the news every couple of hours for what's happening in the business world? The news cycle is every couple of hours now, like it or not. It's been that way for many years now. And there probably won't be a better article tomorrow anyways because it takes much longer than that to evaluate a brand-new produc that nobody has even used yet. And it's still not "shoddy copy-and-paste". It is providing actual context and explanation. It was a perfectly fine, normal article. Your criticism makes no sense. You want something shorter with less context or something longer with more analysis but not something in-between? Sometimes in-between is the right size for what's currently known about a story. And that's good, normal, everyday news reporting. (And nothing to do with "entertainment".)