4 ms·

> but what they will not do is pay a professional editor to do their job the right way, this I can guarantee I don't think that holds up. They can save a lot

> but what they will not do is pay a professional editor to do their job the right way, this I can guarantee I don't think that holds up. They can save a lot of money by using generated articles, but they lose customer (advertiser) confidence if the content isn't accurate. One editor per ten replaced writers is still a significant cost savings. A few iterations from now we might see editors getting replaced too, but I don't think we're there yet.

slantedview 2y ago
> but they lose customer (advertiser) confidence if the content isn't accurate The content isn't what it should have been, which is why the previous commenter rightly assumes that no editor looked at it.
- GrinningFool 2y ago
  I don't follow the logic. One such article getting published does not automatically translate to no editoral oversight on any generated content. Even a low percent of all published articles containing such problems doesn't in any way prove there's no editor involved.
karaterobot 2y ago
The time required to write a good article—by write I mean compose sentences and type them—is a fraction of the time it takes to research it. Because the AI can't do actual reporting or journalism (interviewing people, emailing sources, tracking down documents and ingesting them, checking facts, etc.) then you either push all that work on to the editor, or you consign your publication to only writing stories that require no original reporting. If you push it all on to the editor, the economics no longer pencil out, because the editor is doing the work of 10 authors plus one editor. If you stop doing original reporting, you have a bad product. Today, with the field of journalism in freefall, we actually have the worst of both worlds: not enough editors, not enough time to report, not enough original reporting being done, and too many AI or computationally generated articles. But, I don't see how getting rid of the humans and doubling down on the AI actually solves that problem in the medium and long terms.

slantedview 2y ago

> but they lose customer (advertiser) confidence if the content isn't accurate The content isn't what it should have been, which is why the previous commenter rightly assumes that no editor looked at it.

GrinningFool 2y ago
I don't follow the logic. One such article getting published does not automatically translate to no editoral oversight on any generated content. Even a low percent of all published articles containing such problems doesn't in any way prove there's no editor involved.

karaterobot 2y ago

The time required to write a good article—by write I mean compose sentences and type them—is a fraction of the time it takes to research it. Because the AI can't do actual reporting or journalism (interviewing people, emailing sources, tracking down documents and ingesting them, checking facts, etc.) then you either push all that work on to the editor, or you consign your publication to only writing stories that require no original reporting. If you push it all on to the editor, the economics no longer pencil out, because the editor is doing the work of 10 authors plus one editor. If you stop doing original reporting, you have a bad product. Today, with the field of journalism in freefall, we actually have the worst of both worlds: not enough editors, not enough time to report, not enough original reporting being done, and too many AI or computationally generated articles. But, I don't see how getting rid of the humans and doubling down on the AI actually solves that problem in the medium and long terms.