Dandelion Break AI “Journalist” Falsely Accuses DA Of Murder…

[AgentPete]

I love (er, hate…) this example of AI-replacing-real-writers:

AI Sludge Local News Site Hoodline Falsely Accuses San Mateo DA Of Murder

There’s so much wrong with this crackpot media business model that I’m struggling as to where to begin.

Let me repeat one more time: “AI” is not intelligent. It’s pattern-matching. That’s all. AI does not “hallucinate”. That’s a human characteristic, not applicable to pattern-matching algorithms. AI doesn’t even “think”, because that, too, is a human (animal) characteristic.

This machine/human confusion is quite deliberately being spread by the tech bros / shysters who are pumping and dumping their way to billionairehood. Please don’t let’s get taken in.

 

[Pamela Jo]

One thing that infuriates me is that the avalanche of investment money poured into AI has halted research and development into alternative energies as well as construction of infrastructure. Microsoft buying 3 mile island in order to power their AI program is an example of this Easter Island mentality. Every baby programmer I meet is CONVINCED nuclear power is safe and is the only means to their end. Which may be true-but they don't really understand the end that awaits down that path.

 

[Hannah F]

One thing that infuriates me is that the avalanche of investment money poured into AI has halted research and development into alternative energies as well as construction of infrastructure. Microsoft buying 3 mile island in order to power their AI program is an example of this Easter Island mentality. Every baby programmer I meet is CONVINCED nuclear power is safe and is the only means to their end. Which may be true-but they don't really understand the end that awaits down that path.

Baby programmers? Gee they start young these days!

 

[MattScho]

Yeah, not hallucination and not lying, but picking up the crazy that is the normal internet and having no way to differentiate fact from fiction, news from scam. It has no way to differentiate between important and bogus.
It's a horrible, horrible thing, bred by an age in which we've decided that free beats accurate in our news consumption, and professionals are not needed because our friends (and not really friends) hear stuff.
Having spent 35 years, often risking my life to gather news, this makes me quite sad. It does not, however, surprise me.
The upside would be if Google News found itself liable for libel because of this, as I would have been with my news outlets back in the day. but that won't happen.

 

[Pamela Jo]

Baby programmers? Gee they start young these days!

They do. 19 year olds that think they can design a whole new world and we should be grateful to live in it.

 

[Pamela Jo]

Yeah, not hallucination and not lying, but picking up the crazy that is the normal internet and having no way to differentiate fact from fiction, news from scam. It has no way to differentiate between important and bogus.
It's a horrible, horrible thing, bred by an age in which we've decided that free beats accurate in our news consumption, and professionals are not needed because our friends (and not really friends) hear stuff.
Having spent 35 years, often risking my life to gather news, this makes me quite sad. It does not, however, surprise me.
The upside would be if Google News found itself liable for libel because of this, as I would have been with my news outlets back in the day. but that won't happen.

Ah remember the days when every story was run by the in-house lawyer. Sigh.

 

[MattScho]

Ah remember the days when every story was run by the in-house lawyer. Sigh.

I remember fighting with in-house lawyers as they'd try to strip everything that "could" get us sued from a piece. That ended up meaning every fact, everything that made the piece worthwhile. The reality is that in the US, truth is a complete defense from libel. I was sued three times, but all by a nutso pastor from Topeka (Phelps) so that was a badge of honor

 

[Pamela Jo]

Well that is the reporters POV about lawyers. And I think that unfortunately lives on in the reluctance to call Trump on his babbling incoherence. Irish reporters had no such reluctance when they covered him.

The truth defence used to work, but media libel laws have mutated. Fox needs to have to end any pretence at being a news organisation. Why is "entertainment" give a front row seat at the WH House press corp?

 

[MattScho]

Well that is the reporters POV about lawyers. And I think that unfortunately lives on in the reluctance to call Trump on his babbling incoherence. Irish reporters had no such reluctance when they covered him.

The truth defence used to work, but media libel laws have mutated. Fox needs to have to end any pretence at being a news organisation. Why is "entertainment" give a front row seat at the WH House press corp?

Fox News did pay out $787,000,000 in a defamation lawsuit, and has a couple more that could be pretty serious blows.
It's a shame. I have worked with a lot of Fox reporters, and they've always been good and honest and committed to the news. But they would send their stuff back to New York and it would be mutlilated

 

[Pamela Jo]

Fox News did pay out $787,000,000 in a defamation lawsuit, and has a couple more that could be pretty serious blows.
It's a shame. I have worked with a lot of Fox reporters, and they've always been good and honest and committed to the news. But they would send their stuff back to New York and it would be mutlilated

Just like those who made the choice of working for the Moonies in Washington. I know Fox were awarded that amount and more lawsuits pending... but I dont think they have had to pay up yet. I think that is why Murdoch "symbolically" stepped down. It has curbed their reporters slightly, but the model has spread to the UK. There is a reason the first amendment is about INFORMATION-ie facts. Back to Aristotle it was clear no democracy can survive unless the voters can discern what is fact and what is not. Glad to see Chris Wallace bailed.

 

[MattScho]

The courts didn't award it, Fox settled out of court. They didn't have to apologize, but they did have to cut a check.

 

[AgentPete]

Having spent 35 years, often risking my life to gather news, this makes me quite sad. It does not, however, surprise me.

Respect, Matt.
Preface: I've worked with a few journalists in this area, notably Martin Bell, but I didn't and don't understand the business end.
Having said that, surely we can find a business model that supports expert journalism and reporting from the coal face.
Vice News was doing something like this for a time, were they not?
Granted the audience is so atomized now / only want to hear news that reinforces their own worldview.
Could a personality-led team of journos succeed today, in coop style? I'd like to think so...

 

[Pamela Jo]

Respect, Matt.
Preface: I've worked with a few journalists in this area, notably Martin Bell, but I didn't and don't understand the business end.
Having said that, surely we can find a business model that supports expert journalism and reporting from the coal face.
Vice News was doing something like this for a time, were they not?
Granted the audience is so atomized now / only want to hear news that reinforces their own worldview.
Could a personality-led team of journos succeed today, in coop style? I'd like to think so...

You could say they do.... John Stewarts Daily Show gets more bipartisan viewers than the Real News. I was shocked at how low the viewership is for Fox and CNN et al. People are looking for information they feel they can trust. Unfortunately as you say too often it's just cognitive dissonance in a mask. Because I love Randy Rainbow and trust him to a certain extent I checked out Ground.News. It is earnest, but doesnt have the meat that Vice did once. Or Buzzfeed.

 

[AgentPete]

Yeah, I don't quite get Ground News. An aggregator, right? No original reporting. Plus they use AI (…?) to tell you how biased the item is...
Not quite doing it for me.

 

[MattScho]

Respect, Matt.
Preface: I've worked with a few journalists in this area, notably Martin Bell, but I didn't and don't understand the business end.
Having said that, surely we can find a business model that supports expert journalism and reporting from the coal face.
Vice News was doing something like this for a time, were they not?
Granted the audience is so atomized now / only want to hear news that reinforces their own worldview.
Could a personality-led team of journos succeed today, in coop style? I'd like to think so...

Me too, though your example, Vice, does make me pause. I mean, they were doing that, good reporters, good stories, mass audience, multiple platforms, etc. And they went out of business really hard and broke, before they failed, Buzzfeed went all in on news, hired so many, many good friends who were tops in the field. And they were, at times, wildly popular. But even at their peak, the "which LOTR character are you?" games were supporting the news. The end of their effort was brutal and quick, and they still have popular games which make money, but don't "waste it" on news gathering. A good friend founed Global News, hellishly talented reporters joined in. Died as soon as the venture cap money fled.
The problem is that the major media companies today are google, facebook and X (both of which are so toxic leading into the election that I can't deal with them), and yahoo, MSN. now, yahoo and MSN employ a few journalists, the others just use professional links to suck up ad revenue.
I remember back in the 90s, the Philly Inky was bragging about getting close to breaking into the 20s in percent of profit margin. My publisher in KC at the time smirked, said "well, we could do that, but we'd be going backwards", meaning the profit margin was in the above 30 percent range. At one point, the LATimes hit 42 percent.
All of our money was ad based, subscriptions were basically loss-leaders.
Now, the cost of a newspaper was primarily paper and ink and the trucks and gas to deliver. the reporters and news expenses, while seeming extravagent to me, were basically rounding errors in operational expenses.
So, yes, you can put together a top class news global outlet for not that much money per year, meaning $10-$20 million, maybe less. Not having the print and ink and etc costs. But you either have to find subscribers will to pay, and they are not, or pryse a bit away from the evil overlords of the day, Google, Facebook, Yahoo and MSN, who control more than 70 percent (well, couple years back did) of all ad revenue.