"anyone who’s interested in the health of the information ecosystem — and that should include journalists — ought to be really interested in who builds that layer and how it’s programmed. But I don’t see a huge amount of focus among us news types on this issue; much of our efforts are spent on finding better, faster, more efficient ways to keep doing what we’re doing. Or on ways to get paid more for what we’re currently doing."
YES. It's very confusing to me why the focus from the journalism side rarely touches how to build and support LLM output to be more helpful and relevant/factual for audiences. This is "journalism"'s problem as an industry: a focus on the doing of journalism by the journalist, rather than on the humans who want better, more relevant information (and will subscribe to products that give them better information).
That LLMs can persuade well may be a novelty problem (give it five years and run the test again). That journalists don't understand how to influence and build AI systems-- besides making more of the same old stuff-- is an existential threat to the 20th century thinking of the news business.
Exactly. I'd argue that even a focus on improving LLMs and their output is tangential to the real issue, which is how they're deployed and who controls that. LLMs are already very good; I can already take Claude and have it output multiple different versions of a story, each with a different perspective, all factual. Control of that "last mile" to a user is the critical space where influence is wielded. We need to focus as much on infrastructure as we do on technology, and on journalism. And ultimately, on users and communities.
"anyone who’s interested in the health of the information ecosystem — and that should include journalists — ought to be really interested in who builds that layer and how it’s programmed. But I don’t see a huge amount of focus among us news types on this issue; much of our efforts are spent on finding better, faster, more efficient ways to keep doing what we’re doing. Or on ways to get paid more for what we’re currently doing."
YES. It's very confusing to me why the focus from the journalism side rarely touches how to build and support LLM output to be more helpful and relevant/factual for audiences. This is "journalism"'s problem as an industry: a focus on the doing of journalism by the journalist, rather than on the humans who want better, more relevant information (and will subscribe to products that give them better information).
That LLMs can persuade well may be a novelty problem (give it five years and run the test again). That journalists don't understand how to influence and build AI systems-- besides making more of the same old stuff-- is an existential threat to the 20th century thinking of the news business.
Exactly. I'd argue that even a focus on improving LLMs and their output is tangential to the real issue, which is how they're deployed and who controls that. LLMs are already very good; I can already take Claude and have it output multiple different versions of a story, each with a different perspective, all factual. Control of that "last mile" to a user is the critical space where influence is wielded. We need to focus as much on infrastructure as we do on technology, and on journalism. And ultimately, on users and communities.