Crikey panics about AI journalism. It should

Fake left Crikey is in a panic about AI journalism. At least, it is about its use at Newscorp:

News Corp Australia’s use of artificial intelligence to produce thousands of weekly information articles for “a number of years” has blindsided staff, prompting questions of management over the technology’s adoption across the company.

In a letter to management last Friday, the national house committee said staff were alarmed by comments made in June by company chair Michael Miller in an address to the World News Media Congress in Taipei, in which he said News Corp’s local publishers were using AI to produce more than 3000 hyperlocal articles a week.

The letter, written on behalf of the editorial staff and seen by Crikey, called for answers to questions about which other areas of the company use AI and how, as well as further segments of the business management plans to roll out the use of AI in the “foreseeable future”. It also asked management to rule out job cuts as a result of the technology’s adoption.

“The use of AI in News Corp should be a discussion all journalists in this organisation are included in, not something revealed by News Corp at the World News Media Congress in Taipei,” the letter reads.

A few points to make here.

Since AI was only released this year, it has not happened for “a number of years”. Automated journalism has, but it is usually throwaway data stuff.

The Crikey cringe throws up an interesting question. What role will AI play in journalism? And will it matter?

My feeling is that AI journalism could be a good thing. Crikey’s recently developed fake left point-0f-view (culture war symbolism over class war substance) does not produce objective reporting or argument. Neither does it at The Guardian. Nor the ABC.

Equally, the fake right point-of-view (vested interests over markets and liberalism) at Newscorp and AFR fail to produce objective reporting.

So, let’s run a test. Instead of fake left silence and bias, let’s ask ChatGPT to write a report on the impacts of mass immigration on a developed economy.

Here’s what it wrote:

Positive Impacts:

1. Labor Force Growth: Mass immigration can contribute to the expansion of the labor force in a developed economy. This can be particularly beneficial in countries with aging populations and low birth rates, as immigrants can help fill labor market gaps, support economic growth, and sustain social welfare programs.
2. Skills and Innovation: Immigrants often bring a diverse set of skills, knowledge, and perspectives to the host country. Highly skilled immigrants can contribute to innovation and technological advancements, enhancing the competitiveness of the economy. They might start new businesses, invest in research and development, and contribute to various industries.
3. Consumption and Demand: Immigrants can boost domestic demand by increasing the population of consumers, leading to higher consumer spending and potentially stimulating economic growth.
4. Entrepreneurship: Immigrants are often more likely to become entrepreneurs and start new businesses. This can create jobs, drive innovation, and add dynamism to the economy.

Negative Impacts:

1. Labor Market Competition: In some cases, mass immigration can lead to increased competition for jobs, particularly in sectors where immigrants are concentrated. This can result in downward pressure on wages and working conditions for both immigrants and native workers.
2. Strain on Public Services: Rapid and unmanaged immigration can strain public services such as healthcare, education, housing, and infrastructure. Host countries may struggle to meet the increased demand for these services, potentially leading to dissatisfaction among both immigrants and native citizens.
3. Cultural and Social Dynamics: Mass immigration can lead to cultural and social tensions, as different groups may struggle to integrate and interact with each other. This can create challenges related to social cohesion, language barriers, and identity issues.
4. Welfare and Public Resources: There might be concerns that immigrants, particularly those with lower skill levels, could place a burden on social welfare programs. These concerns can be amplified if immigrants are perceived as benefiting from such programs without contributing sufficiently through taxes.

That’s a damn side more accurate than the fake left press ever managed. It is thesis, antithesis and synthesis by the reader. The conclusion is a net negative.

On the other hand, let’s ask ChatGPT whether oligopolies are good for consumers:

Potential Advantages of Oligopoly for Consumers:

1. Innovation: Oligopolistic firms often compete through innovation to differentiate their products and gain a competitive edge. This can lead to the development of new and improved products that benefit consumers.
2. Economies of Scale: Large firms in an oligopoly might be able to achieve economies of scale, which can lead to lower production costs. These cost savings could potentially be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices.
3. Advertising and Marketing: Oligopolistic firms tend to invest heavily in advertising and marketing to attract customers. While this can increase costs, it can also lead to better-informed consumers who have access to more information about products and options.
4. Stability: Oligopolies can lead to stable prices and a more predictable market environment compared to more competitive markets, where prices might fluctuate more frequently.

Potential Disadvantages of Oligopoly for Consumers:

1. Limited Competition: Oligopolistic markets tend to have limited competition due to the small number of firms. This can result in higher prices and reduced consumer choice compared to more competitive markets.
2. Collusion and Price Fixing: Oligopolistic firms might collude or engage in tacit agreements to fix prices or restrict output, leading to higher prices for consumers and reduced welfare.
3. Barriers to Entry: Oligopolies can create significant barriers to entry for new firms, making it difficult for new competitors to enter the market and offer alternative products or services.
4. Lack of Innovation: In some cases, oligopolistic firms might prioritize maintaining market share over innovation, which can result in slower technological progress and fewer consumer-oriented improvements.
5. Consumer Exploitation: Without robust competition, firms might have less incentive to offer excellent customer service or respond quickly to consumer needs, as consumers have fewer options to switch to.

That’s a damn side more accurate than the fake right press ever managed. The balance is, again, net negative.

The real test for AI journalism is in the specifics of any given case. But, at least in terms of backgrounding, AI is much better than fake independent journos from both ends of the fake ideological spectrum.