The Death of the Byline: AI Avatars Are Replacing Real Reporters

1. 84

   Kenna McHughposted 4 days ago

   Ajay Singh writes an incredible article exposing the AI-generated "personas" violating everything we believe in about journalism. The fake AI reporters make it difficult for readers to distinguish between truth and fiction. The article even mentions TAG's fictitious Sports Illustrated AI product reviews.
   
   "NewsGuard has identified 1,265 fake sites, 52 more than the 1,213 dailies left in the country. They look real enough. That’s the point."
   
   https://www.freedommag.org/news/the-dea … ity-e82c7b

   replyreport
   1. 84

      bravewarriorposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      Thanks for sharing this, Kenna. The article proves the old adage: don't believe everything you read.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      Gregory DeVictorposted 3 days agoin reply to this

      Kenna, I can’t see San Francisco’s Mission Local or Oakland’s Oaklandside newspapers going in this direction. Both of these superb publications are reader-supported as well as corporate-supported. For example, the Oaklandside is supported by over 3,000 readers alone every month. I also know that Lydia Chavez (Mission Local) or Tasheem Raja (Oaklandside) would not tolerate it.
      
      By the way, did you know that the Oaklandside’s headquarters in downtown Oakland is in the same building where HP once had an office? It’s on Broadway near the 12th Street BART station. Small world.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Kenna McHughposted 3 days agoin reply to this

         Gregory,
         
         I didn't know they were once in the same building at the same time in Oakland. Regarding AI, it's good to hear that some publications are avoiding the use of AI. The list of non-users, hopefully, will remain long.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Gregory DeVictorposted 36 hours agoin reply to this

            Kenna, the Oaklandside will send a reader free copies of the newspaper (published Monday to Friday with a Saturday summary of the entire week’s news) for about two weeks. After that time period, readers are expected to make a monthly contribution to the newspaper to receive future copies.
            
            It is worth it in the end because of the superb level of journalism along with no ads whatsoever. Yes, no ads.
            
            Around election time, the Oaklandside also sends numerous text messages to readers with up-to-the-minute election results. They did this recently for the special election for a new mayor. (The former mayor, Sheng Thao, was recalled along with the Alameda County DA, Pamela Price, during the November 2024 election.)
            
            The following is from their website:
            
            “The Oaklandside has a loyal and engaged community of readers who visit our site, read our newsletters, and follow us on social media. Each month, an average of 280,000 people read our reporting, and we average 550,000 pageviews a month.”

            replyreport
            1. 69

               PaulGoodman67posted 29 hours agoin reply to this

               While I'm not challenging the accuracy of what you've presented, Gregory, this is a writer's site, and it's important to also consider the writer's perspective.
               
               The subscription model with no ads isn't an exception for newspapers nowadays, as you seem to imply, it's the norm.
               
               The problem for us writers is that while this model may do better than the ads model, it still only raises enough funds to keep the publications limping along. They simply can't afford to pay the writers as much as they did in the past. It's now common for writers to receive next to nothing or work for free.
               
               Writing for local publications was never a big earner but now the situation is dire. It's often left to the community-spirited who have an alternative source of income.
               
               The traditional (print) model also allowed a writer to sell the same article to multiple publications, which made it easier for a local journalist to scrape a living. The internet means that this practice is essentially dead.
               
               The situation is extremely difficult for writers even if a dwindling number of local publications do still survive.

               replyreport
            2. 84

               Kenna McHughposted 27 hours agoin reply to this

               Gregory, that election was something. I like the idea of loyal readers paying for subscriptions. Unfortunately, even streaming services are now implementing ads.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Patty Inglish, MSposted 26 hours agoin reply to this

                  I eliminated Hulu because the ads locked up my computer. Each time that I had to "unlock" it on any of my browsers, the action took about 15 minutes - multiple times per session.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Kenna McHughposted 25 hours agoin reply to this

                     Hulu and similar sites ads are the pits.

                     replyreport
2. 80

   Rupert Taylorposted 4 days ago

   Two of the world's most trusted news outlets - the British Broadcasting Corporation and The Economist - rarely carry bylines.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Kenna McHughposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      Interesting, Rupert. At least, they don't use fake bylines.

      replyreport
3. 69

   PaulGoodman67posted 4 days ago

   AI will more or less take over because it's essentially free and can generate material in seconds. On top of that, AI will inevitably learn how to make extremely engaging content, even if the content is misleading or untrue.
   
   Human writers will increasingly be seen as too expensive, too slow, and less good at grabbing and holding the reader's attention.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Kenna McHughposted 3 days agoin reply to this

      Not everyone is on the bandwagon.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         PaulGoodman67posted 3 days agoin reply to this

         I see AI as a technological change rather than a bandwagon. Like previous “inventions”, the main drivers will be generating profits and the securement of power, military, political, or otherwise.
         
         The negatives may eventually ameliorated but that may not happen for many years.
         
         Nobody’s talking about regulating AI now, countries, companies, and individuals fear losing out to the competition.
         
         That’s the world we live in. It’s going to get much uglier in the next few years.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Kenna McHughposted 3 days agoin reply to this

            Private sector regulates it. They have formulated policies. Government may never catch up.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               PaulGoodman67posted 3 days agoin reply to this

               As the article you linked to implies, relying on private sector regulation isn't good. When there is a buck to be made, unscrupulous operators move in.
               
               We won't be able to tell the difference between AI and human soon. Unless companies are forced to declare what is AI and what isn't, we're in for difficult times.

               replyreport
      2. 88

         Genna Eastposted 3 days agoin reply to this

         I agree.  AI does not "think" or write -- it constructs, and in ways I and others recognize as artificial and not human.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            PaulGoodman67posted 3 days agoin reply to this

            You're right but you're thinking purely in the present tense without taking into account how the technology is developing.
            
            It really won't be long before you and I *won't* be able to tell the difference in most instances between AI-generated writing and human, such is the rapid rate it's advancing.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               Genna Eastposted 3 days agoin reply to this

               I agree, Paul, that this may be the case in the future within certain genre ranges of journalism, techno writing, and so forth.  These are perhaps easier to mask beneath the AI façade.  But many creative writers doubt that the human element can be mimicked, especially when it comes to certain literary genres such as poetry.  I‘ve seen AI poems which were fairly easy to recognize. They weren’t bad, per se, but weren’t very good either because they were missing that human element of the soul.  Then again, perhaps one must be that kind of creative writer in order to perceive this.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  PaulGoodman67posted 2 days agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I'm talking about writing for an income and nonfiction writing.
                  
                  If you're talking specifically about poetry, which is a tiny niche of writing as a whole that's traditionally seen as having low commercial appeal, it will remain unaffected by AI for longer and to a larger degree.

                  replyreport
4. 80

   Rupert Taylorposted 3 days ago

   Paul - Your optimism is so infectious.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      PaulGoodman67posted 3 days agoin reply to this

      I was a techno-optimist fifteen years ago. What subsequently happened with the internet made me into a pessimist. AI looks even more dramatic and not in a good way.

      replyreport
5. 84

   Solarasposted 44 hours ago

   How do you expect the powers that be to profit from AI. By subscription? Advertising? It seems to me, without a better understanding of where the income steam resides, how Google is not putting itself out of business. Where are the ad $$$s?  I am genuinely curious.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Kenna McHughposted 37 hours agoin reply to this

      Barbara, A client suggests that AI is faster and bypasses the writers, thus saving money.

      replyreport