Google Tests AI Tool That Is Able To Write News Articles (nytimes.com) 43
Google is testing a product that uses artificial intelligence technology to produce news stories, pitching it to news organizations including The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal's owner, News Corp, The Times reported, citing people familiar with the matter. From the report: The tool, known internally by the working title Genesis, can take in information -- details of current events, for example -- and generate news copy, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the product.
One of the three people familiar with the product said that Google believed it could serve as a kind of personal assistant for journalists, automating some tasks to free up time for others, and that the company saw it as responsible technology that could help steer the publishing industry away from the pitfalls of generative A.I. Some executives who saw Google's pitch described it as unsettling, asking not to be identified discussing a confidential matter. Two people said it seemed to take for granted the effort that went into producing accurate and artful news stories.
One of the three people familiar with the product said that Google believed it could serve as a kind of personal assistant for journalists, automating some tasks to free up time for others, and that the company saw it as responsible technology that could help steer the publishing industry away from the pitfalls of generative A.I. Some executives who saw Google's pitch described it as unsettling, asking not to be identified discussing a confidential matter. Two people said it seemed to take for granted the effort that went into producing accurate and artful news stories.
Re: hey journos... (Score:3)
People with no skill in writing often think that, but there is an art to writing an article that people want to read. It's not a simple formula, although one of those can get you some distance towards the goal.
Re: (Score:2)
We may be too dumb to figure them out exactly, but AI is not. I'm not saying it will write articles that are good, but it will definitely figure out how to write articles that people want to read.
The technology being used now will never figure anything out. All it does it regurgitate.
Good! (Score:1, Troll)
Cut him some slack (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right wing "journalists" are just as much propagandists as left wingers. They're all spreading other people's lies for a living. The only difference is that the lefties are somewhat more numerous at the moment.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Right wing "journalists" are just as much propagandists as left wingers.
Fox News, a major "news" organization, has been run from root to branch since at least 2004 as a pure instrument of propaganda. For example: It is not in any way equipped or motivated to self-correct errors. This is not how "news" organizations work.
There is nothing comparable happening on the left. The idea that there is? Is classic "Both sides do it!" fallacy. The New York Times is accountable for its reporting when it doesn't meet standards of basic truthfulness, and actively seeks not to make errors of
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
News organizations get it wrong sometimes. And they usually make an effort to acknowledge it. They do their best with the information they have at the time. That's the poster's point. News organizations have a professional conscience.
Political organizations like Fox News make NO attempt to do so. That's also the poster's point. News organizations have a professional conscience. Large amounts of partisan media do not - indeed, they even view their own refusal to incorporate accuracy as a badge of honour.
It's
Re: (Score:2)
News organizations get it wrong sometimes. And they usually make an effort to acknowledge it. They do their best with the information they have at the time. That's the poster's point. News organizations have a professional conscience.
All very true. It's a pity there aren't any news organization left. They all died long ago, from lack of advertisers.
Re: Holodomor (Score:2)
The NYT is not and never has been liberal. They literally had articles praising Nazis in their heyday. Now they have a bunch of pull yourself up by your bootstraps bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
The NYT is not and never has been liberal. They literally had articles praising Nazis in their heyday.
Their heyday was decades ago. Are claiming that nothing ever changes, even over the course of 50, 75, a hundred years? Are you that delusional?
Now they have a bunch of pull yourself up by your bootstraps bullshit
Now they cater to advertising demographics, just like every other "news" organization that has survived the apocalypse of the internet, and the advertising demographics they cater to leans [allsides.com] to [adfontesmedia.com] the [influencewatch.org] left [biasly.com] (and according to some of those links, always has).
Not as badly as, say, the Communist News Network, or National Propaganda Radio, perhaps, and they do have a history o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a quick rundown for those who aren't entirely assimilated into either collective:
News is a business. But it is not the business of selling news, it is the business of selling advertising Readers are, literally, the product. Advertisers are the customers.
Advertisers want eyeballs, but more than just any eyeballs. They want eyeballs that fit the demographics of people who might buy their products as a result of the advertising. (People who would buy their products anyway are irrelevant to the advertisi
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Where's mod points where you need them? The above should be taught in school as part of basic education.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a quick rundown for those who aren't entirely assimilated into either collective:
News is a business. But it is not the business of selling news, it is the business of selling advertising Readers are, literally, the product. Advertisers are the customers.
This is the problem. News does not need to be a business, it shouldn't be one.
What many Americans won't understand is that the BBC is a hugely trusted news source because it has no profit motive, as such has few motivations beyond reporting fact. More over, it is watched like a hawk, by regulators, by politicians and most importantly by the general public and all of these groups will jump on any inaccuracy or perceived bias. As the BBC is a public broadcaster (not a state broadcaster, there's a huge diff
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, the BBC is also viewed as left leaning [adfontesmedia.com] by the same groups that track such things. Not as much so as NYT, but biased, nonetheless.
Re: (Score:2)
Right wing "journalists" are just as much propagandists as left wingers. They're all spreading other people's lies for a living. The only difference is that the lefties are somewhat more numerous at the moment.
They're right wing worse because they're less propagandists than outright liars. Good propaganda has a kernel of truth to it, even if it is exaggerated all to hell. The likes of Fox News, the Daily Mail, Sky News, flat out tell falsehoods. The problem is that you've now got a generation that has gorged themselves exclusively on the likes of Fox News and can no longer tell fact from fiction.
BTW, there isn't really a "left wing" version of Fox News. By this I mean proper Marxism, not some odd opinion piece
Re: (Score:2)
That blue Kool-Aid must be very tasty.
Re: (Score:2)
News... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Except the grammar and spelling will improve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who is being screwed out of a job? Every time you do something yourself, you're screwing someone else out of a job. When you drive yourself to work, you screw a chauffuer out of a job. If you take the bus you're screwing automotive workers out of a job. If you watch a movie on TV you're screwing local theater actors and cinema ticket sales people out of a job.
Goodbye human internet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And who gets credit / publication rights? (Score:1)
Silly question: is this a way to get around all of the companies/countries that claim that Google is not compensating organizations the create content? I mean, if a Google AI creates the article, the New York times publishes, did Google just bypass all those claims of "stealing" content?
Apologies if the article covers this. It's behind a paywall, so I can't read it. I guess a link that gets around that would be "stealing" the content? It's a shame that articles behind paywalls are advertised here thes
Really? Just now? (Score:2)
Seems like this has been going on for a few years now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"accurate and artful news stories" (Score:2)
I don't believe that has been a thing for at least 50 years now. Blood, guts, mayhem, and sensationalism is the name of the game. A.I.'s hallucinations should fit right in.
Journalists are babysitters now? (Score:2)
Dupe! (Score:2)