4 ms·

> "The article does not have an author and states at the bottom, 'This post includes content assisted by AI tools. This content was assisted by AI and may conta

> "The article does not have an author and states at the bottom, 'This post includes content assisted by AI tools. This content was assisted by AI and may contain errors. Please verify critical information with trusted sources.'" Feels like kind of a nothingburger to me - it was explicitly marked non-factual.

toss1 3y ago
That's the same argument the Trump family & corps are making in their losing civil fraud case - "we put in a disclaimer so it's on the reader to figure it out". When the context, format, presentation, etc. all signal it's a factual report or document , a disclaimer doesn't cut it. (kind of signals that you are even more of an asshat)
- nyc_data_geek1 3y ago
  "Big if true"
  - mediumsmart 3y ago
    Really big, and might take some time to sink in here
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  often the police are reported in the press with euphemisms that hide their connection to an incident. so it's kinda ironic to throw shade on proper transparency.
  - toss1 3y ago
    I'm not throwing shade at proper transparency, I'm calling for more of it! Putting out a story, report, assertion, etc, that carries most or all the trappings of veracity, but has some disclaimer that isn't right up front-and-center-obvious, is NOT proper transparency. Proper news stories are supposed to be structured with the most important information up front, in the headline & first paragraph — the 5 Ws — Who, What, When, Where, Why. Then go into successively less important detail. The concept is to deliver news, and also allow the editors to cut it off wherever necessary to fit. If the story is not factual, your disclaimer needs to be in that first paragraph (with an exception for April Fools jokes). Just because most "news" is now formless clickbait trash, does not make it legit to put a "this uses some [unspecified amount of] AI input and may not be fully factual" at the end where nobody will read it. That's playing cute "gotcha" games with your readers, and is the opposite of transparency.
xg15 3y ago
"may contain errors" usually does not mean that the entire article is a fabrication.

toss1 3y ago

That's the same argument the Trump family & corps are making in their losing civil fraud case - "we put in a disclaimer so it's on the reader to figure it out". When the context, format, presentation, etc. all signal it's a factual report or document , a disclaimer doesn't cut it. (kind of signals that you are even more of an asshat)

nyc_data_geek1 3y ago
"Big if true"
- mediumsmart 3y ago
  Really big, and might take some time to sink in here
cyanydeez 3y ago
often the police are reported in the press with euphemisms that hide their connection to an incident. so it's kinda ironic to throw shade on proper transparency.
- toss1 3y ago
  I'm not throwing shade at proper transparency, I'm calling for more of it! Putting out a story, report, assertion, etc, that carries most or all the trappings of veracity, but has some disclaimer that isn't right up front-and-center-obvious, is NOT proper transparency. Proper news stories are supposed to be structured with the most important information up front, in the headline & first paragraph — the 5 Ws — Who, What, When, Where, Why. Then go into successively less important detail. The concept is to deliver news, and also allow the editors to cut it off wherever necessary to fit. If the story is not factual, your disclaimer needs to be in that first paragraph (with an exception for April Fools jokes). Just because most "news" is now formless clickbait trash, does not make it legit to put a "this uses some [unspecified amount of] AI input and may not be fully factual" at the end where nobody will read it. That's playing cute "gotcha" games with your readers, and is the opposite of transparency.

xg15 3y ago

"may contain errors" usually does not mean that the entire article is a fabrication.