You are forgetting a cardinal rule: When something is likely to affect the press, the press affords it more attention.
So the writers, editors, graphic designers etc of the press are likely to be very affected by generative AI. So they worry about it. So they write about it.
I’m also in a line of work that will see substantial changes … so I understand their plight. But I think a large part of the reason the press write about the use of genAI to make “art output” is that they worry about genAI will make their “art output” soon.
“So they write about it” with AI assistance. It can easily be argued that modern word processor software has some level of AI in it.
She: What kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.
Same story, it’s just a question to what extent the software moves from being an unacceptable amount of assistance as a tool. Sports equipment follows the same story, at some point it’s regarded as cheating, we just haven’t established what that line is. Clearly there are people who don’t care what that line is and so long as it represents a competitive advantage to ignore that line then people will freely cross it.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
You are forgetting a cardinal rule: When something is likely to affect the press, the press affords it more attention.
So the writers, editors, graphic designers etc of the press are likely to be very affected by generative AI. So they worry about it. So they write about it.
I’m also in a line of work that will see substantial changes … so I understand their plight. But I think a large part of the reason the press write about the use of genAI to make “art output” is that they worry about genAI will make their “art output” soon.
“So they write about it” with AI assistance. It can easily be argued that modern word processor software has some level of AI in it.
She: What kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.
Same story, it’s just a question to what extent the software moves from being an unacceptable amount of assistance as a tool. Sports equipment follows the same story, at some point it’s regarded as cheating, we just haven’t established what that line is. Clearly there are people who don’t care what that line is and so long as it represents a competitive advantage to ignore that line then people will freely cross it.
deleted by creator
Considering a good chunk of US media is just ingesting Reuters and adding a spin to it, I’m not surprised.