AI-Guided Opinion Writers Set for Washington Post, Under Jeff Bezos's Supervision
The constant drumbeat of AI-related blunders wouldn't lead you to expect the media industry to leap at AI opportunities - but, shockingly, here we are. In a desperate attempt to boost readership, The Washington Post is set to amplify its opinion section with a horde of fresh, AI-nurtured writers. Yeah, you read that right.
Since the spring, the Post has been honing an ambitious project to amplify diverse voices within its columns. Multiple insiders both confirmed and spilled the beans to The New York Times about the experimental program, called Ripple. From the get-go, it bears a striking resemblance to previous contributor models (some successful, others not so much) deployed by the Huffington Post and Forbes. Unlike those models, though, the Post has taken the unusual step of ditching the human touch.
Instead, it's leaning on Ember, an AI coach, to steer the writers through the treacherous waters of opinion writing. According to the New York Times, Ember's prototypes boast a "story strength" meter and a sidebar featuring basic components like "early thesis," "supporting points," and "powerful conclusion." Additionally, it includes a live assistant delivering writing prompts and reshaping content as needed.
Each article, slippery as an eel and published beyond the Post's paywall, will still receive a human review before shining bright in the limelight. The Times suggests that Ember will commence testing this autumn. But, why test the tempest when we've stomached this exact recipe before? Merely two years ago, CNET drew fierce criticism for publishing AI-led pieces with minimal disclosure. Don't worry, though; the editor-in-chief later clarified that each piece underwent careful vetting, fact-checking, and traditional editing. Despite the assurances, Futurism demonstrated that one piece handpicked by the editor was chock-full of inaccuracies.
The Post has been skating on thin ice as it navigates the ever-evolving media landscape. Last year, it tiptoed into a new subscription scheme to shore up its revenue after losing a staggering $77 million. But no fancy subscription strategy can save a sinking ship when you've got a crew of boneheads at the helm. In January, the Post trimmed about 4% of its crew in a bid to cut losses. Just a month later, owner Jeff Bezos' chaotic overhaul of the opinion section sparked a historic exodus of editors, causing over 75,000 digital subscribers to check out.
Artificial intelligence might have some uses within the realm of journalism, like sifting through vast databases and recommending relevant articles. Yet Ember is holding a much larger bat than that. When journalists at multiple outlets, such as the Atlantic and Politico, voice concerns about AI, the Post's decision seems downright preposterous. But hey, what do we know?
A Closer Look: Perspectives and Concerns
Here's a peek at some potential viewpoints regarding the Washington Post's decision:
- Objectivity and Bias: Concerns linger that AI could introduce bias, especially if it's trained on a dataset skewed towards a particular ideological viewpoint. If "personal liberties and free markets" are on the AI's menu, for instance, it could enforce a specific view, rather than catering to diverse opinions.
- Innovation and Efficiency: Advocates might see the use of AI as a bold new approach to content creation and management. AI could streamline the review process and offer constructive feedback, potentially enhancing the opinion section's quality overall.
- Job Security: The integration of AI could spark worries about human jobs being at risk. While AI can certainly assist in reviewing and editing, some may fear that it could eventually replace human professionals altogether.
- Response to Ownership Directives: Given Jeff Bezos's ownership and the Post's recent shift towards libertarian views, the use of AI could be viewed as a method to ensure compliance with the owner's directives, which might not sit well with the broader journalistic community's values of neutrality and diversity in opinion pieces.
- The integration of artificial intelligence in the Washington Post's opinion section, as seen with the use of Ember, raises concerns about objectivity and bias, especially if the AI is trained on a dataset that favors a specific ideological viewpoint.
- From a perspective of innovation and efficiency, the use of artificial intelligence in content creation and management, such as the Post's AI coach, Ember, could be seen as a bold new approach that could potentially enhance the quality and streamline the review process of opinion pieces.
- The integration of AI in the media industry, including at the Washington Post, may lead to worries about job security for human professionals, as AI could assist in reviewing and editing content that was once done by humans.
- Given the ownership of the Washington Post by Jeff Bezos and the recent shifts towards libertarian views in the opinion section, the use of AI could be perceived as a method to ensure compliance with the owner's directives, which might not align with the broader journalistic community's values of neutrality and diversity in opinion pieces.
