[ad_1]
The school of journalism teaches writers should report news rather than news. But what happens when one of your articles goes viral? Rather than that, how did Ai Doohickey swallow what you wrote and upchuck the controversial sum?
Welcome to my week.
On February 25th, The Times published Columna, which marked the 100th anniversary of Anaheim voters ousted four Ku Klux Klan members from the city council. I saw it in my claim that Anaheim is a place that “loves to celebrate positivity,” so it wasn’t surprising to me that many readers were not paying attention to my claims. They claimed that the KKK in the 1920s wasn’t as bad as the South.
No, when The Times began their insights, the fun really began. This is a tool that has created artificial intelligence by reviewing the article and pasting rankings of places the work appears to be on the political spectrum. (My clan’s work, for example, is clearly “left”, which is as surprising as the end of the original “Karate Kid.”)
The feature also provides bullet points summary from the Internet-wide internet-wide for other news articles, columns and reports, alternative perspectives and related links.
My other recent columns have been “center left”, “center” and even “center right”. I still lack “correct” in my Lotería card.
In a letter to readers introducing the feature, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of LA Times, writes that “providing a more diverse perspective will support our journalistic mission and help our readers navigate the issues facing this country.”
Well, it didn’t take long for one of Mr. Insight to get people to see red.
Linking to articles critical of the KKK, “Local historical accounts frame the clans of the 1920s from time to time as a product of a “white Protestant culture” that responds to social change rather than explicitly hatred-driven movements, minimizing the threat of their ideological ideology. ”
Italics are mine, so put a pin on that phrase because it matters.
Soon the headline began:
It only took a day for La Times’ new AI tools to sympathize with the KKK.
After defending the KKK, the La Times pulls new AI tools from the article.
La Times’ new AI tools gave sympathy for the KKK.
And it went. Some of the article’s authors either cut off the phrase “minimize the threat of that ideological” or appeared to pretend it didn’t exist. But that part of the sentence is important. It claims that too many people in Orange County historically have minimized the risks of the KKK.
The AI tool could have committed the crime of fuzzy and clumsy phrasing, but it did not defend or sympathize with the KKK.
Journalists like to complain that critics of their articles have not read past the headline. Well, this was a case where journalists had not read the first clause of the sentence.
In fact, as pointed out in X, the quote was correct. I was actually shocked. However, I was also frustrated that two other bullet points, including one that linked to one of my columns on OC clans in 2018, were roughly out of context, but no one else seemed to care.
In any case, friends began texting stories from local and national outlets within hours of the column’s appearance online, claiming Times Autright’s AI tools backing the KKK. Some readers have announced that they have cancelled their time subscriptions.
With an overly long dismantling of my colonna, a rambling of insight, some have concluded that it downplays the fears of the KKK.
But to declare it literally endorsed the hatred group?
As the author of the column that sparked Ai Klan-Gate, there was only one reporter who contacted me. My opinion would have been given something free of AI to every corner.
As a journalist, I hope that my contemporaries who reported on this situation were a little more accurate in explaining the language they saw in this feature. The net effect was that the AI tools actually burn the cross and appear to show KKK support in a column that explicitly denounced the invisible empire.
I think they didn’t even read my column because they were more dependent on the Times AI tools, not the actual journalism that preceded it. Thank you, friends!
For readers who said canceling your time subscription is a way to lodge the outrage in the era to use insights, here. Like the comments section, you can engage in it. You can choose only to read what a human has to say. Why can you pick up digital football and go home if you ignore the AI Pendejada enough?
If this has a silver lining, it means that I might be a prophet. In December, I predicted that when the Los Angeles Times would use that opinion, any program would earn self-inflict the moment it encounters one of me.
That should count as Roteria Square, right?
[ad_2]Source link
