Almost every time an article like this is posted, the contents are the result of one or two comments out of thousands, or a Reddit post that didn’t gain much traction outside of “eh, sure, I guess?”
Tangentially related, IMO there should be an “author review” site, where if someone posts a stupid article like this, it is referenced in a database against their name and their frame of reference for the content is called out. Rank “journalists” against this, and eventually the people starting out in the industry posting AI-generated shite that doesn’t hold up will start to err on the side of caution.
Almost every time an article like this is posted, the contents are the result of one or two comments out of thousands, or a Reddit post that didn’t gain much traction outside of “eh, sure, I guess?”
Tangentially related, IMO there should be an “author review” site, where if someone posts a stupid article like this, it is referenced in a database against their name and their frame of reference for the content is called out. Rank “journalists” against this, and eventually the people starting out in the industry posting AI-generated shite that doesn’t hold up will start to err on the side of caution.
You’ve just re-invented journalistic standards and peer review.
It is how the news cycle is supposed to work. One journalist says something, others verify or disprove it publicly.
The problem is that there is now no difference between journalism and content or between news channels and platforms.