3 ms·

Don't forget: > This article is made and published by Anna Hartz, which may have used AI in the preparation The editors don't even know for sure if the author

Don't forget: > This article is made and published by Anna Hartz, which may have used AI in the preparation The editors don't even know for sure if the author used AI or not.

pell 1y ago
That aspect I don’t find all that concerning. I just wish they had a page where they explain what AI preparation entails.
- emsign 1y ago
  But they can't. That would require resources which they have outsourced to OpenAI. If they documented their workflow all "productivity" gains would be lost. The whole point of AI is to get away with cheap and dirty. sounding high quality and competent.
  - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
    God forbid the management UI of the publication adds one or two checkboxes with "Did you AI to prepare for this article?" and "Did you use AI to write any of the text for this article?" that authors could just check/uncheck themselves.
- SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
  "AI" isn't a well-defined term, it's a marketing term. AI includes LLMs, but also seems to include basic autocomplete, spellcheck, and any other algorithm that runs on a computer.
el_pollo_diablo 1y ago
I would put the emphasis on a different word: > This article is made and published by Anna Hartz, which may have used AI in the preparation Which, not who. They're not even sure the author is human!
- etiennebausson 1y ago
  Might be a language issue, as English is not the primary language of the newspaper's staff.
emsign 1y ago
> may They don't even specifically know for each article if their authors use LLMs or not. What a shitshow.
dotancohen 1y ago
By using the word "which" instead of "who", the editors don't even know for sure if the author _is_ AI or not.
arthens 1y ago
I don't understand the snark. Considering that "using AI" can mean anything from "AI wrote the whole article" to "the author used AI to check the grammar", I'd argue this disclaimer is unnecessary and it's safe to assume AI is involved in some way nowadays. (the author of this comment may have used AI)
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  > it's safe to assume AI is involved in some way nowadays I don't think it's safe to assume so at all. Granted, I only know one journalist, and they've told me they only use LLMs in their work to gather further sources/references to check, everything else they still do "manually" with their own hands. The editorial team should know exactly the scope of their teams AI usage. The snark mostly comes from them not knowing if AI was used or not, and they be upfront about them not knowing it. Feels like they're missing integrity if they don't know such things.
  - arthens 1y ago
    > I don't think it's safe to assume so at all. Granted, I only know one journalist, and they've told me they only use LLMs in their work to gather further sources/references to check, everything else they still do "manually" with their own hands. I'd argue that your example falls under "which may have used AI in the preparation", which was exactly my point. (I actually had using AI for research as an example, but English is not my first language and I couldn't get the sentence to sound correct and chatGPT suggested I drop it) > The editorial team should know exactly the scope of their teams AI usage. The snark mostly comes from them not knowing if AI was used or not, and they be upfront about them not knowing it. Feels like they're missing integrity if they don't know such things. I don't see this as a lack of integrity, but rather as a futile attempt at being transparent. Everyone else is in the same position, they are just not adding a disclaimer. And that's nothing specific about journalists, this applies to all professions. At most you can say what your official policy states, but you have absolutely no way of knowing how your employees/coworkers are using AIs.
    - 1y ago
SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
TBH I'm not even sure if I'm using AI half the time. I'm pretty sure any sort of autocomplete gets marketed as AI these days, so anything I type with my phone probably counts as having used AI. "AI" is a marketing term with no fixed technical meaning.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  I'm well aware that AI is very broad, but for all intents and purposes, when journalists say something like "AI was/wasn't used to write this article" they're not talking about autocomplete or being affected by A/B tests that happen to use ML, it's pretty clear they're using AI as another name for LLMs.

Don't forget: > This article is made and published by Anna Hartz, which may have used AI in the preparation The editors don't even know for sure if the author used AI or not.

pell 1y ago

That aspect I don’t find all that concerning. I just wish they had a page where they explain what AI preparation entails.

emsign 1y ago
But they can't. That would require resources which they have outsourced to OpenAI. If they documented their workflow all "productivity" gains would be lost. The whole point of AI is to get away with cheap and dirty. sounding high quality and competent.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  God forbid the management UI of the publication adds one or two checkboxes with "Did you AI to prepare for this article?" and "Did you use AI to write any of the text for this article?" that authors could just check/uncheck themselves.
SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
"AI" isn't a well-defined term, it's a marketing term. AI includes LLMs, but also seems to include basic autocomplete, spellcheck, and any other algorithm that runs on a computer.

el_pollo_diablo 1y ago

I would put the emphasis on a different word: > This article is made and published by Anna Hartz, which may have used AI in the preparation Which, not who. They're not even sure the author is human!

etiennebausson 1y ago
Might be a language issue, as English is not the primary language of the newspaper's staff.

emsign 1y ago

> may They don't even specifically know for each article if their authors use LLMs or not. What a shitshow.

dotancohen 1y ago

By using the word "which" instead of "who", the editors don't even know for sure if the author _is_ AI or not.

arthens 1y ago

I don't understand the snark. Considering that "using AI" can mean anything from "AI wrote the whole article" to "the author used AI to check the grammar", I'd argue this disclaimer is unnecessary and it's safe to assume AI is involved in some way nowadays. (the author of this comment may have used AI)

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
> it's safe to assume AI is involved in some way nowadays I don't think it's safe to assume so at all. Granted, I only know one journalist, and they've told me they only use LLMs in their work to gather further sources/references to check, everything else they still do "manually" with their own hands. The editorial team should know exactly the scope of their teams AI usage. The snark mostly comes from them not knowing if AI was used or not, and they be upfront about them not knowing it. Feels like they're missing integrity if they don't know such things.
- arthens 1y ago
  > I don't think it's safe to assume so at all. Granted, I only know one journalist, and they've told me they only use LLMs in their work to gather further sources/references to check, everything else they still do "manually" with their own hands. I'd argue that your example falls under "which may have used AI in the preparation", which was exactly my point. (I actually had using AI for research as an example, but English is not my first language and I couldn't get the sentence to sound correct and chatGPT suggested I drop it) > The editorial team should know exactly the scope of their teams AI usage. The snark mostly comes from them not knowing if AI was used or not, and they be upfront about them not knowing it. Feels like they're missing integrity if they don't know such things. I don't see this as a lack of integrity, but rather as a futile attempt at being transparent. Everyone else is in the same position, they are just not adding a disclaimer. And that's nothing specific about journalists, this applies to all professions. At most you can say what your official policy states, but you have absolutely no way of knowing how your employees/coworkers are using AIs.
  - 1y ago

SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago

TBH I'm not even sure if I'm using AI half the time. I'm pretty sure any sort of autocomplete gets marketed as AI these days, so anything I type with my phone probably counts as having used AI. "AI" is a marketing term with no fixed technical meaning.

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
I'm well aware that AI is very broad, but for all intents and purposes, when journalists say something like "AI was/wasn't used to write this article" they're not talking about autocomplete or being affected by A/B tests that happen to use ML, it's pretty clear they're using AI as another name for LLMs.