The Washington Post reported that an Ohio newspaper has touted AI as a "star writer." Interesting, but there are many things to consider with a cold eye. We are dealing with the broad topic of AI's "impact" on journalism, but information on specific tech stacks or models is extremely limited. Looking only at the facts, we know almost nothing other than the fact that the newspaper is using AI and that it is called a "star writer."
In this situation, what we need to pay attention to is what "backdoor" AI is digging into journalism. Whether it is simply "generating" articles, or "designing" new articles through data analysis. What algorithm does AI use, where are the data sources, and how much human editor intervention is there? Without answers to these questions, it is difficult to grasp the truth hidden behind the splendid packaging of "star writer."
From the information currently available, it is not possible to know exactly what part of the article AI is in charge of. Perhaps it is just a simple data collection and organization task. If so, the expression "star writer" is just an exaggerated marketing strategy. If you use LLM-based text generation models, the speed will increase, but you can't expect in-depth analysis or critical views. In the end, human editing skills are essential.
Looking at the current status of competitors, the Associated Press has long been using AI to automatically generate standardized articles such as sports results and corporate earnings announcements. But this also goes through the sensibility and review of human reporters. Reuters also operates an AI-powered data analysis and news breaking system, but core article writing remains the responsibility of humans. In other words, AI is only a supplementary tool and cannot be the main player in journalism.
Of course, AI technology is rapidly developing. But journalism requires more than just information delivery, but also social criticism, in-depth analysis, and a fair perspective. There is still the possibility that AI will reflect human biases as they are, or deliver incorrect information due to algorithmic errors. Therefore, the evaluation of AI's impact on journalism must be very careful. Don't be fooled by the sweet words of "star writer," but analyze only the facts coldly.
In conclusion, the case of the Ohio newspaper only shows the early stages of AI being introduced into journalism. It has the potential to bring about "disruptive" changes, but there are still many things to verify. If you are an investor, before smelling "money" in AI journalism-related technologies, you should carefully consider the technical completeness, ethical issues, and market competitiveness. Now is just the stage to "wait and see."