[_xnmw]

Color me extremely skeptical that current-generation AI can ever write decent quality news articles, even on the "easiest" subjects (i.e. non-emotional topics that may be most amenable to computerization). Sure, an AI might be able to produce the type of contradictory and fundamentally meaningless strings-of-words that characterize Trumpian speech, but even that would lack a unified agenda behind it. Even Trump seems to appeal to some raw masculine #MAGA emotion pretty consistently, but I doubt an AI would be able to do even that. If an AI could produce decent news articles with consistently meaningful statements, I think it would have huge implications for linguistic theory. Currently, we have no way of representing abstract semantic meaning in a computer, for example when I say the word "justice", you all know what I'm talking about because you all have embodied experiences of "justice" (or its opposite) in your personal lives (e.g. bullying). An AI simply never had access to this kind of embodied, experiential input. It only has access to patterns of strings that we humans produce. And so why should we expect an AI to be able to ever produce the same output that we produce when it has access to less input? Sure, one might argue that news articles are not novels, and so require a lower threshold of understanding to produce. I don't think so. We tend to underestimate the embodied nature of even the most basic use of language[0].

[0] See The Embodied Mind by Varela, Thompson, and Rosch.