Google tests A.I. tool that is able to write news articles

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/business/google-artificial-intelligence-news-articles.html

by asnyder • 3 years ago

100 135 3 years ago

neom• 3 years ago

NVHacker• 3 years ago

In summary: under the pretext of showcasing a writing assistant / tool, Google scares the (s... out of) newspaper companies by showing them an AI that can write news articles all by itself.

reaperducer• 3 years ago

Or, it's Google firing a shot across the bow of newspaper companies that think Google should pay to use their content.

Google's modus operandi has always been to automate people out of the equation. This lets Google have its own news operation, without paying for all those pesky journalists.

I wonder if the AI will eventually write stories about any of the bad things that Google does, or just the good things.

jononomo• 3 years ago

I suppose all a news writer has to do now is tell the AI what happened and then then the AI can tell everyone else what happened.

Alifatisk• 3 years ago

Is good quality journalism really that bad to invest in?

These days I have to scroll through a lot of fillers in articles just to get into the real story.

esafak• 3 years ago

So... have one AI to generate the article and another to condense it back to the summary it was created from :)

akomtu• 3 years ago

In reality: an AI bot watches the stream of twits, picks those that fit its narrative (preprompt) and tells the users what to think.

jmount• 3 years ago

As a (formerly?) information retrieval company, isn't this shitting where one eats? They don't exactly need more irrelevant material to sort out.

kmeisthax3• 3 years ago

Google has been shitting where they eat ever since they decided to put the answers to questions in the SERP itself instead of just offering search links.

AndrewKemendo13• 3 years ago

I’d love to hear somebody try to explain how this won’t negatively impact the labor market for journalists.

My guess is that the argument will be that the “tools will simply help augment rather than replace the writer.”

We know, however, that some small segment of implementations will actually in fact, cause someone to be fired or replaced, and things will get slightly worse for the consumer.

An alternative explanation will be “well The writing wasn’t very good anyway, it was all a regurgitation of the same thing over and over anyways”, so “nothing of value has been lost.”

I’d love to hear people saying hey maybe let’s not do this in order to maintain a human system run by humans for the benefit of humans and that includes paying humans for labor (when you could actually get equivalent labor from a machine) because it’s important to keep humans alive and creating communities and supporting each other.

echelon2• 3 years ago

How many humans do you want employed as butter churners?

I imagine that the new AI-enabled jobs are going to have so much more autonomy and that we'll see a switch from capital intensive businesses employing lots of people (eg. Hollywood studios) to lots of tiny indie houses with fewer than a dozen folks, building exactly what they want with freedom.

dangerwill• 3 years ago

How many humans do you want employed as butter churners?

This gets said about every wave of technological driven job loss and it ignores that it is quite difficult for people to change careers in their mid life. Laid off auto workers in the 80s and 90s didn't switch to other manufacturing jobs or "learn to code". They fell down the ladder into service work and became destitute. And the difference with LLMs is that they threaten essentially every human not working in manual labour with the same fate.

I imagine that the new AI-enabled jobs are going to have so much more autonomy and that we'll see a switch from capital intensive businesses employing lots of people (eg. Hollywood studios) to lots of tiny indie houses with fewer than a dozen folks, building exactly what they want with freedom.

I'm sorry but I can't reconcile this with my view of what is actually going on. The entire point of LLMs being introduced in the film industry is to remove humans from the equation to increase profit margins and avoid having to pay actor/writer residuals. That is where all of the investment money is going, not some utopia where the investment money is being split between AI studios churning out "content" and some small human, indie studios making "art".

Also, one of the ways the indie film scene has survived is as a proving ground for up and coming actors/actresses (it being part of the career ladder for the acting profession provides a supply of actors/actresses despite low pay) who can then go on to more mainstream films and make their living. If we cede the mainstream to AI then that career progression breaks down and indie films become wholly personal passion projects by folks with enough money to have an extremely expensive hobby.

AndrewKemendo13• 3 years ago

How many humans do you want employed as butter churners?

More than exist today probably.

We should not be regularly eliminating slightly less efficient processes that use human workers, for completely alienated processes that are worse, that use fewer workers.

Self checkout is a perfect example of this. It’s worse for everyone except for grocery store owners.

JohnFen3• 3 years ago

How many humans do you want employed as butter churners?

I think that's the wrong question. The better question is how can be ensure that people aren't just out of work and can still be able to afford to live?

antegamisou• 3 years ago

My guess is that the argument will be that the “tools will simply help augment rather than replace the writer.”

Yet they always end up augmenting the scammer, grifter and undermine those that want to remain articulate.

shoubidouwah• 3 years ago

I think there's a difference between the concept of journalism and content creation / copywriting. Both come from the same school programs in a way, but while the latter is pretty trivially replaced by AI, the former is a combination of curiosity, multi-step investigation, physical ferreting of information and sensations, and emotionally charged writing to get a point across in a way that is recognizable as art when well done. Journalism is safe from AI for now, but was not safe from cost-cutting and (infotainementization?) cultural debasement.

A potential upside is: lowering the marginal cost of page filling drivel so much in conjunction with declining advertisement revenue, the whole industry collapses in on itself, taking opinion pieces with it. The baseline for getting out of journalism school would be "write better than an AI", and the reporter jobs themselves become high status / high difficulty again.

A potential downside is: nothing written ever matters again, all information is a rehashed AP cutting with prompt engineering, and AP / Reuters become a set of controlled bottlenecks.

The scary thing is: this will be decided by whether the paying customer wants to be informed, or feel the warm glow of confirmation bias?

tivert3• 3 years ago

the whole industry collapses in on itself, taking opinion pieces with it.

That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Opinion pieces will be the last to go, after everything of value has been destroyed.

And honestly, not all opinion pieces are bad. Most are crap partisan hackery and outrage-bait, but some are very valuable (e.g. those unconnected with ideological bickering, those struggling to explain a point of view to hostile audiences, those "swimming against the tide," etc.).

carlosjobim3• 3 years ago

Real journalists investigate and discover facts and create new content: "news". But many people working as "journalists" just re-write what other people have reported. The first category can never be replaced by a machine, because the machine can only repeat material it has been fed, or make up lies. The second category should be replaced by machines.

There's unlimited ventures for investigation for anybody who wants to be a journalist, but it takes much more work than rewrites. I read a lot of newspapers, and the news part consist of about 50% rewrites from other sources, 40% mindlessly repeating press releases from companies and government, and at most 10% investigating and actually reporting new knowledge. Even without machines we already have enough tech that re-writes shouldn't be needed.

AndrewKemendo13• 3 years ago

So then you just chose to respond with my final example:

“ An alternative explanation will be “well The writing wasn’t very good anyway, it was all a regurgitation of the same thing over and over anyways”, so “nothing of value has been lost.””

In fact something has been lost, which is a human being is now less able to feed themselves and their family and take a vacation and create something valuable.

The fact that you and others don’t care about that outcome is the problem.

skepticATX• 3 years ago

There isn’t enough information to make that call. If it’s perfect then sure, it’d impact things.

Essentially what we know is that Google (with a financial incentive to make exaggerated claims) has demoed something to media execs (with little to no background required to critically evaluate these claims).

AndrewKemendo13• 3 years ago

I’d agree with this, but…

I think it’s safe to say the intention of every party here seems to be aligned with the notable exclusion of an actual writer

Writers and journalists aren’t quoted in the article and I see no reference to them being included in the product pitch (article only discusses executives being given demos)

So in terms of incentive alignment, the person being impacted seems to be the least involved.

davidguetta4• 3 years ago

That doesn't matter in the end.

1/ Technology has always disrupted labor market so I mean that's not even a question this will happen.

2/ It's not that sad: I've worked in journaism and the reality is that 80% of news article are already most of the time a sad copypasta of a single main source of info such as reuters / AFP in france. Most of journalism is already noise.

Maybe that will help recenter journalism on real investigative missions rather than this current low value state.

AndrewKemendo13• 3 years ago

That doesn't matter in the end.

Doesn't matter to who?

I'm pretty sure it matters a lot to people working in a newsroom

paganel• 3 years ago

Unfortunately local news doesn’t find its place in Reuters/AFP news dispatched, and so losing local news will basically mean an epistemic black hole when it comes to the stuff physically closest to us.

tivert3• 3 years ago

I’d love to hear somebody try to explain how this won’t negatively impact the labor market for journalists.

According to the OP: "[t]he tool...can take in information — details of current events, for example — and generate news content." IMHO, that's not really journalism at all, which I would define as gathering that information and deciding what bits are worthy of being reported (e.g. what's new and interesting vs what's already well-known and understood).

Honestly, this tool seems like another example of techies redefining the problem to what their program can do, instead of writing a tool to solve the problem. I would imagine that the "writing" part of a news article happens nearly automatically as a side effect of all the other activities a journalist has to do. Sort of like how the "writing a program" part of developing software will nearly automatically fall out of the task of writing a sufficiently precise specification. A tool that can translate such a specification into code is a nothingburger (despite its maker's inevitable hype about rendering software engineers obsolete), because that's not where the work is.

I’d love to hear people saying hey maybe let’s not do this in order to maintain a human system run by humans for the benefit of humans and that includes paying humans for labor (when you could actually get equivalent labor from a machine) because it’s important to keep humans alive and creating communities and supporting each other.

I totally agree on this.

I might be fruitful to develop an AI tasked with hunting down and exterminating software engineers and tech executives who seek develop AI to replace human labor. /s

baron816• 3 years ago

There's a lot of work journalists want to do, but just don't have the capacity for because these types of articles take precedence. It could higher value, but riskier/time intensive work (ie investigative work). It's possible that news rooms will be able to generate more content like this and provide them that profit buffer to then allow their human journalists to go pursue more complex stories.

I have no idea though. Predictions are hard to make, especially when they're about the future.

_djo_• 3 years ago

That would be true if newsrooms keep the same number of journalists on staff, so that they're freed to conduct more investigative work.

Looking at the trend in global newsrooms and the way they've already been gutted in the name of dividends how likely do you think that's going to be?

More like this will be used as an excuse to cut even more journalists and, worse, to run local and regional news without any journalists at all, with the few who remain being as under pressure and overworked as ever.

nonameiguess• 3 years ago

This has already been said, though you seemingly didn't like it. A journalist is not the same thing as a writer. They develop ideas, conduct investigations, interview subjects and witnesses, travel to locations, check and verify the work of other journalists by calling sources to see if they're told the same thing the second time. They maintain relationships with sources.

Let's imagine that, currently, a journalist spends 50% of their time conducting investigations and 50% of their time sitting at a keyboard typing up their findings. The ideal hope for a technology like this is the future then consists of 90% of a journalist's time being spent conducting investigations and 10% telling a text generator to type up the findings for them and cleaning it up. Overall, more time spent investigating and following up should result in higher-quality, more interesting work.

It may appear to consumers at our end that the work of a journalist is just writing because the writing is all we see, but this is not the case.

slowmovintarget2• 3 years ago

Writers will be offered a one-time payment for their writing sample, which will be used by publishers, in perpetuity, to generate content in that style.

No royalties.

Also, no further employment.

The shame of it is, this is actually slightly better than the current state of things, where no one who contributed writing to the training sets in any form is receiving compensation. But it is the same issue as one of the sticking points in the SAG-AFTRA strike.

kmeisthax3• 3 years ago

The endgame of this is having to pay enormous sums up-front for training data of dubious value. Like if you dictated that all creativity had to be paid for purely through Kickstarter.

anigbrowl6• 3 years ago

Nobody gives a shit about style for news reporting, which is about fact gathering. AI-generated style imitation will hurt opinion columnists, but they're a complete waste of oxygen anyway.

thehappypm2• 3 years ago

Journalism is a lot more than just turning press releases and such into articles. In fact, making it cheaper to churn those out will free up money for real journalism — investigations, interviews, analysis, opinions.

Loquebantur2• 3 years ago

No, it won't.

News media today are nothing more but a vehicle to bring attention to advertisement. The majority of people do not read lengthy articles anyway, only headlines. Investigative journalism is wildly expensive and not cost-effective given said objective.

News media are anachronistic anyway. People are stuck in childish and dumbed down variants of "my parents told me so".

What is necessary (and severely lacking) is two-way (or rather, public) communication. Enabling OSINT. Enabling people to form well-founded opinions. To discuss and receive constructive criticism of their views and ideas. Facilitating self-reflection on a society-level.

dahwolf• 3 years ago

Indeed, for example turning Tweets and Tiktok videos into articles.

holoduke• 3 years ago

Good journalism is also a formvof activism. Not sure if that exists in AI writers.

slowmovintarget2• 3 years ago

Which would sadly make AI writing more attractive to the C-suite rather than less. It would produce writing to match their current preference.

atlantic• 3 years ago

You mean, bad journalism is a form of activism. Good journalism aims at objectivity, and allows readers to form their own opinions.

hef19898• 3 years ago

Well, those people who wrote the 234th article about a lionesse potentially on the loose in Berlin today will definitely have a hard competing with AI...

anigbrowl6• 3 years ago

As a journalist, I hate writing. I like hunting down facts and details, the actual writing part is miserable and boring. There's constant sweating over how much context to include so that the reader is well-informed vs the risk of burying the important stuff. I've never used an LLM to write anything, but I have seriously considered doing a dense infodump and telling it to ask me up to 5 contextual questions before spitting out a report.

Editing other people's stuff is even worse, because many writers aren't burdened by editorial concerns and don't bother to put in the effort to make their story coherent and interesting in the first draft. Also the money is terrible unless you are lucky enough to work in a corporate newsroom.

jonny_eh• 3 years ago

There's constant sweating over how much context to include so that the reader is well-informed vs the risk of burying the important stuff

Won't help you when you have to edit the AI output because…

Editing other people's stuff is even worse, because many writers aren't burdened by editorial concerns and don't bother to put in the effort to make their story coherent and interesting

So in the end, what do you gain?

thumbuddy• 3 years ago

Anyone else looking at these things as propaganda machines that have zero liability? "Ewps da AI said to stage a coup again lul sorry we fix it 4 u mb"

visarga• 3 years ago

Not worried about low quality text from AI. Soon enough it will be hard to find a human who writes better than a human+AI+plugins team. And an AI+plugins system will be better than average human.

We need to have AI monitor the news and rate their level of factuality by consistency analysis and reputation scoring. Journalists in the loop, working with AI to find disinformation. Then we can feel safer about propaganda-LLMs, they are inevitable.

goodgoblin• 3 years ago

b/c the 'writing' part is at the end of the process of gathering the news.

hervature• 3 years ago

I’d love to hear people saying hey maybe let’s not do this in order to maintain a human system run by humans for the benefit of humans and that includes paying humans for labor (when you could actually get equivalent labor from a machine) because it’s important to keep humans alive and creating communities and supporting each other.

You are aware that, prior to refrigeration, people would harvest ice from the Arctic? Honestly, I don't care they all lost their jobs if it means millions of people don't die during heat waves.

sva_• 3 years ago

prior to refrigeration, people would harvest ice from the Arctic

Umm, are you sure about that? Source?

notatoad2• 3 years ago

well The writing wasn’t very good anyway, it was all a regurgitation of the same thing over and over anyways

well, yes. you clearly understand the problem, but stating it dismissively doesn't refute it.

paying people to do minimal rewrites of press releases or wire service articles is not productive work. at all. people would be better served by reading the original source.

a job that requires no skill and provides no benefit isn't really a job, it's just a selectively-applied welfare program, disproportionately provided to the people with the best connections. putting a stop to those sorts of "jobs" is not a bad thing.

JimtheCoder2• 3 years ago

" it's just a selectively-applied welfare program, disproportionately provided to the people with the best connections. putting a stop to those sorts of "jobs" is not a bad thing."

As long as you have somewhere else to put them...or else they will go on another type of welfare program where they don't have to do any work.

That is the issue here...

ecf• 3 years ago

Maybe a controversial opinion but the world needs news that contains no opinions, no fluff, no guesses at what that piece of news may hold for the future, no interpretation whatsoever. Basically I want journalists to not journal at all and just give the headline.

If this requires AI, so be it. I will pay for it.

mc32• 3 years ago

A problem with automation is that there is no pushback against the narrative. Bias will be a dial in either direction without fussy journalists daring to question the received narrative.

Nasrudith2• 3 years ago

There was significant pushback against narratives beyond reporters getting pissed at prompts to interupt this story from Iraq for Britney Spears release from prison? That is news to me, no pun intendes. Pushback seems more the domain of the audience than the writers.

hulitu3• 3 years ago

I’d love to hear somebody try to explain how this won’t negatively impact the labor market for journalists.

The AI is not able to construct a lie so credible like some journalists.

civilized• 3 years ago

America's most prestigious news organization is reporting that an AI can write news articles, with no evidence other than Google's say-so.

We seem to be reaching peak generative AI hype.

Brendinooo2• 3 years ago

The tool, known internally by the working title Genesis, can take in information — details of current events, for example — and generate news content, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the product.

Doesn't this already exist in some form? I remember headlines from a few years ago about how stuff like wire reports about sports games could be generated from a box score.

hotpotamus• 3 years ago

The Simpsons called it the DJ 3000[0], complete with the executive threatening to replace people with it. It's not exactly a novel idea.

[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_VwP8yf5TI

Brendinooo2• 3 years ago

Of course not, but I thought it was already more than just an idea.

nils-herzig• 3 years ago

A lot of these spam / clickbait articles and SEO Blogposts were written (at least partially) by a less advanced version of this for quite some time. They are probably written by openai these days

pengaru• 3 years ago

I look forward to the "hallucinations" defense in explaining away the rampant fake news and market manipulation of our future automated news sources...

Philorandroid• 3 years ago

Soon, journalists the world over will be in contest with a purpose-built machine for the fakest and least-grounded (but most-believable-sounding) content.

consumer451• 3 years ago

a purpose-built machine for the fakest and least-grounded (but most-believable-sounding) content

truthiness.ai

edit: wow, it's actually registered.

basitmakine• 3 years ago

I manage a network of news websites. We've played with few and currently using WordAssistant.org/news-ai. I wonder how will it compare to existing tools.

bastardoperator• 3 years ago

Good, this will cause media to rethink their relationship with Google.

morkalork• 3 years ago

I guess this is Google's way of telling media companies in Canada / Australia how they feel about link taxes. I wonder where they got their training data though..

thecleaner• 3 years ago

This is so cool. As somebody else also pointed out, journalism is all about the data collection. Say what you will about WikiLeaks, one of the things I liked about them was the whole data dump thingy. I prefer the idea of "Here's the data, make up your mind"

efields2• 3 years ago

Surely data can never be biased. Most sources of data are honorable. This approach is flawless.

(extremely, heavily italicized and bolded: /s)

[edit: typo]

choas• 3 years ago

just wondering if this AI is aware of that Google will sunset the AI within the next two years, and if it will then write its own farewell article

summerlight• 3 years ago

Sounds like a ChatGPT trained for journalist use cases? I don't think the goal is to auto populate people's feed with some generative contents. Google probably doesn't want to be legally liable with all those machine generated articles...

efields2• 3 years ago

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.

Google engineers: I'm I so out of touch?

[ beat ]

Ge: No, surely it is the users who are wrong.

hnburnsy• 3 years ago

Here is the template to write a news article...

State some facts as reported by others (never link to supporting documents only summarize them)

Quote from expert or eyewitness on why this is important

Quote from other expert why this might not be important (optional as this might make the story not truly news worthy)

State that confusing aspects of the story are "unclear"

Fill the rest of the story from articles on the same subject even if not related (link to your publication only)

rickette• 3 years ago

Painfully accurate

darth_avocado• 3 years ago

You forgot the part where you cover all of this up with ads that actively block you from reading any of it.

leet_thow• 3 years ago

Also, never forget to mention at least once, advocates, activists, experts and lawmakers.

junon• 3 years ago

Also don't name the expert. It's forbidden.

joshka• 3 years ago

Make sure to state the names of anyone you've reached out for comment that haven't gotten back to you.

zagrebian• 3 years ago

Don’t forget to end the article with “We’ve reached out to [company involved] for comment but didn’t receive a response in time.”

d13• 3 years ago

And if it’s more than 500 words, add “on a cold November morning” somewhere.

hulitu3• 3 years ago

* for every number in your article add 000. People _like_ big numbers.

* don't forget the children

* emotions are very important

* strip all declarations out of context. The article is too long anyway.

* don't make exact statements. Be as vague as possible without compromising the spirit of the article.

* last but not least: construct a beautiful story. It might not get read now, (some people have work to do) but it will make the basis for your future Pulizer prize.

papichulo2023• 3 years ago

Missing cookies (we care about your privacy lol) and subscription popups

Eddy_Viscosity2• 3 years ago

And if the article involves the police doing something terrible, use passive voice. 'A small child was struck by bullet' rather than 'Police officer murders toddler'.

catsarebetter• 3 years ago

Ironic when they shadow ban AI articles. I've written articles using 90% AI, ranked the same day for keywords, then they've disappeared the next day.

1letterunixname3• 3 years ago

Show me the evidence or it didn't happen.

There is no fingerprint or smoking gun in textual prose to distinguish between bullshit human writers and generative AI.

If we wished to prove humans are behind content, then we should all be posting pictures of today's newspaper with the handwritten message we intended to convey. Imagine how much less shit social media would contain if that were the barrier to hitting the "post" button.

frozenlettuce• 3 years ago

I built a simple and ugly website that generates AI news based on updates from frameworks and libraries, and content that is trending on reddit/HN using the OpenAI API. Yes, it has ads.

Some things that I've learned so far:

- The AI is too gullible. If I ask it to write a short summary of an article, if the source article is trying to shill a product or service, the AI will replicate the salesman discourse. I tried adjusting the prompt to see if I could make it more critical of content that it is analyzing (by telling it ahead of time that the post might be trying to push a product/service).

- Costs are ludricously low. It costs like 1 cent per 15 articles.

- My next experiment will be with local news. I'm building some feeds with public information from my town (the town's hall official news, the legislators weekly meeting notes, weather reports, waze, etc), and based on that make it generate news items. The thing about it is that its sources will be (nearly) primary - it will not copy content from other journalists (apart from the official prefecture news, which I will need to tell the AI that will be biased towards the current administration). When analyzing the local records, it might be able to catch shady stuff that regular journalists would not notice. Imagine feeding some buying orders from the town and asking the AI ("is something illegal going on here" or "are any of these items overpriced?")

- I see a risk/opportunity for infinite content generation. Example: generate 50 headlines for articles about the Kardashians. The next day, ask for more and provide the last 200 headlines, to make sure that no repetitions occur. It would flood search engines with almost random content. I think that something like that could be useful to fill "holes" in wikipedia, though.

The site that I built is https://dev-radar.com/

yummypaint• 3 years ago

People seem to be confusing composition with journalism. Journalism is what happens before an article is composed, and this system does nothing resembling original research or fact finding.

1letterunixname3• 3 years ago

We can never replicate the entirety of Robert Scheer, Jeremy Scahill, Abby Martin, or Chris Hedges with an algorithm, nor should we because of the ethical implications: the power it would transfer to the government-industrial complex or anyone seeking to manufacture sentiment without the intent of committing Walter Cronkite journalism.

This conflation is a critical flaw of reasoning. It will increase the tendency of so-called journalists hitting the "write copy using AI" button to spew out content. It will not, cannot, and should not replace critical thinking skills, interviews, or research. I'm curious how this was pitched by Google and the thinking of newsroom management. Tools should augment and automate mechanic work such as an enhanced LexisNexis search, not substitute or delegate human expertise.

At some point, without necessarily donning a tin foil hat, we ought to reflect on the possibility of computing power and automation misusing ability beyond the filter bubble of selective "resharing" for user persuasion to the realm of generative faux organizations, personalities, and content. Elaborate digital hallucinations intent on gaslighting and arguing with users individually.

dogman144• 3 years ago

There are interesting angles to this. Newsrooms started shifting journalists over to contractors a while back because of risk from libel lawsuits, even if defendable. Gawker and Peter Thiel started this trend.

This contractor shift paired with the revenue pressure from the internet’s impact has made journalism a real tough industry.

I wonder how LLMs writing news would impact the contractor/libel situation. I could see it freeing up resources to then pay w2 journalists worth protecting for bigger stories. Or maybe LLMs writing the controversial stories and seeing who gets sued in that situation.

jonplackett• 3 years ago

https://whatsthefuckingnews.com

1letterunixname3• 3 years ago

Definitely the Winsted Citizen.

ilaksh• 3 years ago

This NY Times articles fails to provide any concrete examples of the inputs and outputs of the program.

tzm• 3 years ago

I hope Google opens this up to actual journalists who can find and validate facts, then use AI to write long form content.

dave333• 3 years ago

It might be more valuable to have AI read news articles and decide which are factual and important or apply whatever filter the user defines. Automated HN but with much broader input.

Google tests A.I. tool that is able to write news articles

Related Stories