AI controlled news of the future

[Mediafrog+]

Interesting read, but will it all happen as the author thinks?

AI Will Change Everything About Local TV News - TV News Check

The technology is already here to make TV newsrooms more accurate, efficient and creative. Here’s a road map towards a bot-assisted local news industry.

tvnewscheck.com

 

[TheBigA]

Interesting read, but will it all happen as the author thinks?

I have a different view. First of all, a lot of articles we see on the internet are already being assembled by AI. Some even admit that AI was used in their creation. So the future is here now.

The other thing is the article is basing his view of TV news staffing on how it's currently being handled. The mistake current newsrooms are making is they're staffing based on an obsolete model. They get paid a salary plus benefits. The current funding can't pay for that model anymore. Here's what the article says:

Television news has become stagnant. Our days of true innovation are long past. Instead, we have understaffed newsrooms struggling to produce enough product to fill the myriad newscasts that are now the hallmark of local television. Sadly, most of that product has become standardized and predictable.

Comparatively, in internet news, the creators only get paid when their content is read. That has to be the new payment model. If creators want to do enterprise reporting, they have to be willing to take the financial risk. They get paid based on the content they create, and how much money each piece attracts. If you view journalists as content creators, and pay them based on usage, you'll get more productivity.

AI is part of that. Simple reporting, such as delivery of known information such as weather or stock quotes can be done using AI. You don't need a human to present that kind of straight information. Converting audio to text is also best done by AI. There's a lot of radio that could attract more money if it was converted to text and delivered through internet platforms and social media. The main thing with AI is it still takes humans to operate it. The amount of AI you use will depend on how you oversee and edit what it delivers. So there's more to this story than is replacing humans with AI.

 

[secondchoice]

That's all fine and dandy but any data system is only as accurate as the data it accepts as "true". Picture recognition is still not at 100%. Good luck with social media. AI could easily do basic journalism (check sources etc.) but investigative reporting one would have to be on guard for AI going down "rabbit holes".

If your system totally gets a story wrong and someone sues and it actually gets to court, the software would be subject to "discovery" by an unfriendly law firm. Any "evidence" found will be public record.

Atlanta local TV newscasts hours have expanded not contracted in the last decade. Apparently there is advertising revenue to cover the increased hours in that market. I could see something like this in a "Nowhere North Dakota" market.

 

[Mediafrog+]

Comparatively, in internet news, the creators only get paid when their content is read. That has to be the new payment model. If creators want to do enterprise reporting, they have to be willing to take the financial risk. They get paid based on the content they create, and how much money each piece attracts. If you view journalists as content creators, and pay them based on usage, you'll get more productivity.

The danger of that is that the selection of news content will be based on people’s consumption of what might be considered intellectual junk food, while seriously important information that actually impacts their lives gets ignored. Clickbait on steroids. We already have that in droves.

The main thing with AI is it still takes humans to operate it.

Why can’t AI run itself? Sort of like robots repairing other robots. 🤖

I said this in another thread a while back, but when we start seeing corporate executives being replaced by AI, we’ll then know the technology has truly arrived. I once again submit my idea for an executive AI software package called the “C-Suite Suite”.🤪🤣

 

[Mediafrog+]

If your system totally gets a story wrong and someone sues and it actually gets to court, the software would be subject to "discovery" by an unfriendly law firm. Any "evidence" found will be public record.

Probably everything the legal profession does can be replaced by AI. You can have AI bots suing other AI bots. An AI bot can be the judge, and 12 firewalled AI bots can be the jury.

Since our Supreme Court has already ruled that a corporation is a “person”, perhaps the day will come when it is also ruled that AI is a person.😵‍💫🤯

 

[TheBigA]

The danger of that is that the selection of news content will be based on people’s consumption of what might be considered intellectual junk food, while seriously important information that actually impacts their lives gets ignored. Clickbait on steroids. We already have that in droves.

That's up to the humans who own & operate these services. As you said, we already have that in droves. So if TV news can't compete, then they will go the way of NewsNet and other cheap TV news. All I'm saying is the staffing model has to change.

Why can’t AI run itself? Sort of like robots repairing other robots. 🤖

It can, and I see a lot of AI-generated content that obviously wasn't edited before it was sent.

I said this in another thread a while back, but when we start seeing corporate executives being replaced by AI, we’ll then know the technology has truly arrived. I once again submit my idea for an executive AI software package called the “C-Suite Suite”.🤪🤣

The people with the money get to decide how it's spent. In the meantime, anyone can start their own news service and become their own CEO. What I'd like to see is more experienced and knowledgeable people starting their own news services. There should be no such thing as an unemployed journalist. Everyone has a platform. It's up to them to figure out how to monetize it.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

ChatGPT-maker OpenAI signs deal with AP to license news stories

ChatGPT-maker OpenAI and The Associated Press said Thursday that they’ve made a deal for the artificial intelligence company to license AP’s archive of news stories.

apnews.com

ChatGPT-maker OpenAI and The Associated Press said Thursday that they’ve made a deal for the artificial intelligence company to license AP’s archive of news stories.

“The arrangement sees OpenAI licensing part of AP’s text archive, while AP will leverage OpenAI’s technology and product expertise,” the two organizations said in a joint statement.

Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.

OpenAI and other technology companies must ingest large troves of written works, such as books, news articles and social media chatter, to improve their AI systems known as large language models. Last year’s release of ChatGPT has sparked a boom in “generative AI” products that can create new passages of text, images and other media.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/meta-platforms-use-reuters-news-content-ai-chatbot-2024-10-25/

So far Reuters has a deal with Meta Inc AI chat bot system and AP News has a deal with ChatGPT's Ai system for news content on the AI platforms. This shows that the major News Agencies are willing to adapt to new platforms as soon as they have the data that the target demos are going to these places.

Meta Platforms said on Friday its artificial intelligence chatbot will use Reuters content to answer user questions in real time about news and current events, the latest AI tie-up between a big technology company and a news publisher.
Neither Meta (META.O), opens new tab nor Reuters-parent Thomson Reuters (TRI.TO), opens new tab disclosed the financial details of the partnership. The arrangement would be its first news deal in years. It comes at a time when the Facebook parent has been reducing news content on its services after criticism from regulators and publishers over misinformation and disagreement about revenue-sharing.

 

[secondchoice]

Probably everything the legal profession does can be replaced by AI. You can have AI bots suing other AI bots. An AI bot can be the judge, and 12 firewalled AI bots can be the jury.

Since our Supreme Court has already ruled that a corporation is a “person”, perhaps the day will come when it is also ruled that AI is a person.😵‍💫🤯

Most of not all of the State legislative bodies have a majority make up of lawyers (both parties). They control the Bar (legal*). Why would you allow AI to take your full time job. If some how a bill to allow AI to practice law ever got out of committee, there would be cooperation between both parties on par with the vote to enter WW2 after Pearl Harbor.

*Fill in your own joke

 

[NoDakObserver]

That's all fine and dandy but any data system is only as accurate as the data it accepts as "true". Picture recognition is still not at 100%. Good luck with social media. AI could easily do basic journalism (check sources etc.) but investigative reporting one would have to be on guard for AI going down "rabbit holes".

If your system totally gets a story wrong and someone sues and it actually gets to court, the software would be subject to "discovery" by an unfriendly law firm. Any "evidence" found will be public record.

Atlanta local TV newscasts hours have expanded not contracted in the last decade. Apparently there is advertising revenue to cover the increased hours in that market. I could see something like this in a "Nowhere North Dakota" market.

In the Bismarck, ND market, we have 4, 5, and 6 pm news. And the Nexstar station decided to go for an hour of news at 6 rather than have ET or a sitcom at 6:30. Nexstar also puts 9pm news on their CW network, and our NBC (owned by Gray) has a Fox subchannel with 9pm news. And that's not counting the local morning shows both have. It must be profitable if Nexstar and Gray put this much news in our market.

 

[kevtronics]

I'm hearing more AI voices being used in radio commercials. They are getting better, but the pacing and delivery is still a bit stilted and mechanical, and the emphasis of certain words is odd. Plus generally there is a lack of any passion in what they're saying -- it comes out sounding like the speaker is bored and uninterested in whatever product or service they're supposed to be advertising.

Plus, of course, there is no regional accent at all. It's the classic Midwestern-esque "generic American accent" to the Nth degree.

 

[crainbebo]

How long before AI personalities replace the traditional American local TV news anchor?

 

[Delete My Account]

Comparatively, in internet news, the creators only get paid when their content is read. That has to be the new payment model. If creators want to do enterprise reporting, they have to be willing to take the financial risk. They get paid based on the content they create, and how much money each piece attracts. If you view journalists as content creators, and pay them based on usage, you'll get more productivity.

Great. How are they going to get read amidst a glut of AI generated crud often created by, at mildest, parties that are more interested in quantity than quality, or worse, hostile actors?

Meta disables Russian propaganda network targeting Europe

Facebook says it has identified and stopped a sprawling network of fake accounts that spread Russian propaganda about the invasion of Ukraine throughout Western Europe.

apnews.com

We already know this is an issue with hostile foreign powers creating distortionary and inflammatory content on social media hoping to influence elections and elicit distrust. Social media is already not dealing well with bots, fake accounts, and abuse of the platforms. How do you compete with that, regardless of how good you are? If you're one quality journalist vs some content farm in Belarus? Looked at X lately and how much crud flooded the zone over there?

I'll grant you that something like Substack, for the moment, gives some of that quality control and allows content creators to be paid, but if you're honestly thinking that most journalists can scale in an internet full of fake news, that's only getting worse because of the AI, you are far more of an optimist than I can fathom.

 

[TheBigA]

Great. How are they going to get read amidst a glut of AI generated crud often created by, at mildest, parties that are more interested in quantity than quality, or worse, hostile actors?

I'm talking about TV news. You're talking about the internet. Two different things. What's happening on the internet is there now. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. All I'm talking about is how TV newspeople get paid. They work on salary. Internet works either for free or per piece. That's just the reality of the situation. How are they going to get read? Write better stuff. That's what the editors at the Washington Post told their writers.

 

[JeeperOne]

Viewers will not want to watch A ROBOT (To use the word my sister-in-law LOVES to call Alexa) giving them the news (Bad enough they get that from Alexa itself (Not that I DID NOT say "Herself"??)

 

[Delete My Account]

I'm not disputing they have to be GOOD journalists to get paid, whatever platform they're on.

But it's all becoming one platform. If your "video" news is AI, and the "internet" content is AI, it all floods the zone. It's going to get harder to tell who the "legitimate" ones are to follow, and therefore GET paid, regardless of how good they are, or how hard they work.

Platforms - be it the Washington Post or CBS TV had the legitimacy, they were the filter. When you completely obliterate that with AI content, which costs so little to generate, all bets are off.

 

[TheBigA]

But it's all becoming one platform. If your "video" news is AI, and the "internet" content is AI, it all floods the zone.

I don't think that's happening. The fact is that anyone can start a news platform. They don't need a license, diploma, or permission. How they do it is up to them. Some are using AI, some aren't. People read what they want. There is no government imposed minister of news. At least not yet.

The issue is about money. Who will pay for news? Right now people seem to be avoiding the paywalls meant to fund real news. What can you do about that? Force people to pay? There are good ways and bad ways to use AI. Focus on the good ways to win the battle against the bad ways.

 

[radiofan2023]

Mark Cuban was against ESPN and other sports networks using AI-generated content a few years ago, but now he’s claiming AI is the future.

 

[PTBoardOp93]

How long before AI personalities replace the traditional American local TV news anchor?

The tech exists today. It's just a matter of one of the big broadcast chains rolling it out.

Probably won't be long, especially if Scrippscast (the anchorless newscast being used in off-prime hours in several of their markets) is a flop.

 

[secondchoice]

IMHO if the social platforms could stop repostings after the second or third time it would help stop a lot of negativity and misinformation. I got some totally false messages about FEMA in western NC a couple of weeks ago.

There is an old saying that went something like "if you tell a lie enough times some people will believe it is true".

AI could help to sort out repostings that are bogus and keep them out of newscasts.

 

[kevtronics]

IMHO if the social platforms could stop repostings after the second or third time it would help stop a lot of negativity and misinformation. I got some totally false messages about FEMA in western NC a couple of weeks ago.

There is an old saying that went something like "if you tell a lie enough times some people will believe it is true".

AI could help to sort out repostings that are bogus and keep them out of newscasts.

Which newscasts gave out false messages about FEMA? All I ever heard from them was debunking those myths. The only thing that might fit what you claim is news outlets carrying political rallies without fact-checking any conspiracy theories contained within them. But when they do that, a certain candidate threatens to sue them...