Pimping News

[o0Ampy0o]

It has been years now that I have observed the routine practice of tabloid level content presented as serious news. 

 

Enter AI. In the last few months I have seen AI generated news reports which are bogus but the known-to-be-bogus stories are introduced by news sources with headlines misleading you to take the bogus news as legitimate. That is, the articles/videos have been recognized as AI generated BS but the news source reporting the discovery presents the bogus story as a legitimate news story first while knowing it is bogus. In effect, the news organizations are participating in promoting the bogus story when they know it is bogus.

 

There is a YT account which has been showing bogus news reports. In the process of identifying it as a source of bogus news they are promoting it by referencing the YT account by name.

 

The obvious objective is click bating. "Everybody wants some, they want some too."

 

Where is the oversight? Does any credible organization monitor and take action on these things? One day a war could be started over the bogus news stories taken as legitimate.  Somewhere there has to be a form of policing this BS. Typically these articles are disturbing news as we are lead to take them seriously. They are not joking matters. If they were in fact true / legitimate they would be significant problems with dire consequences. 

 

Identifying these bogus reports should be clearly distinguished so that the determination of fact is not confusing truth and fiction.

 

Example reporting of a bogus news story, headline:

 

"Fact Check: xxxx's 'Violent Thugs' Storm His NYC Courtroom, Leaving 'Many Injured'?

 

Reading that headline without any prior knowledge of the purported courtroom incident leads you to see some of it as an actual event where a few details were initially incorrect.

 

Bottom line: The headline should not reinforce the fictional event.

 

 

Question: Do you know of a good source for genuine news reporting?

[nursers]

I do subscribe to the common belief that a mix of news sources is best. We certainly have our tabloids down here, but nothing like the USA. It's a real eye-opener spending time in the US and channel surfing. Wow. 

 

My mix FWIW: Sydney Morning Herald, ABC Australia news, NY Times, my hometown newspaper and a smattering of Twitter / Reddit / FB. Some would say that mix is a little left-leaning.

[Anderton]

AI will generate content faster than humans can fact-check or moderate it. And, they will generate enough "art" to create a glut. If everything is art, then nothing is art. If everything is news, then nothing is news. 

 

Google is complicit in this. The recently made a decision about search results that basically said humans aren't required to produce quality content. That may be true, but humans increase the odds of producing fact-checked, vetted content. The Bing GPTchat-based thing is a great toy and can be helpful, but it produces a lot of wrong answers. So does Bard. 

 

Does anyone believe for a millisecond that Google will have enough employees to determine what parts of the oncoming tsunami of AI-generated content consists of actual quality material? I sure don't.

 

My sources for news are nothing to write home about, I use aggregators. People tell me it's worth subscribing to Apple News if I want good aggregation. I just might do that.

 

MSN was decent until they replaced human editors with AI algorithms to curate articles on its homepages (and fired 27 people in the process). 

[Notes_Norton]

For those not in the US, the tabloids used to be for sale in the checkout aisle of grocery stores.

 

Many years ago, Mrs. Notes and I spotted one that said in huge type:

 

INVISIBLE ALIENS ARE AMONG US

PHOTOGRAPHS INSIDE

 

Of course, that produced laughter and a desire to see the photographs of something invisible. What we saw were a few photos that had a small blurred spot on them.

 

I too, like more than one source, and try to get both sides, but within limits. I consider any news sources farther left than The Atlantic or farther right than The Hill to be more fiction than fact. That puts both Fox and MSNBC in the “don't believe it” category.

 

As far as I'm concerned, nothing in a tabloid is to be considered fact.

 

I suspect with AI, things are going to get worse. I understand it's possible to take a sample of your voice, and use it to say anything at all.

 

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

 

From Politifact, who seems to be middle of the road enough to bash both extremes.

 

[ProfD]

I'm also in the camp of checking a variety of news sources and using my brain to filter out the BS. 

 

Of course, we live in a world where folks are inundated with entertainment masquerading as news. 

 

Those who lack critical thinking skills will get caught up in the matrix and/or remain comfortably numb in being entertained.

 

It's all about money.  Entertainment generates a lot of it. News become a part of it too.😎

[KuruPrionz]

AI is a tool, it could be used for good but humans are wily and nasty and the profits from creating negative AI paradigms won't be overlooked. 

In another field of endeavor, there are lots of AI generated photographs of "human" models now, advertising agencies will be spending less and both photographers and models will suffer the consequences. 

 

Pandora's box is wide open with no signs if it ever being closed again. 

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, KuruPrionz said:

In another field of endeavor, there are lots of AI generated photographs of "human" models now, advertising agencies will be spending less and both photographers and models will suffer the consequences. 

 

And "influencers" who will do anything you want, be on the job 24/7, and will always be eternally young.

 

At one point, network news crossed over from being something they could show the FCC as doing something for the public good, to a profit center. That was the beginning of the end.

 

Does anyone subscribe to Apple News? Got opinions?