[continuitylimit]

That is a very odd historic analog to pick but deliciously ironic in that you apparently (?) missed the bit in the OP about “few powerful” interests controlling the labeling of data and thus ‘vocabulary of discourse’ of generativeAI. It is ironic because Luther too had “few powerful” parties behind him — various Princes iirc — who also wanted to unseat Vatican and thus amplify their own power.

So sure, “journalism” is at a low prestige level because a “few powerful” interests -own- all mass media, including press, and we have a handful of “press services”.

Key issue here is the troubling “few powerful” regardless of their declared ‘denomination’, so to speak, don’t you agree?

[cgriswald]

I don’t disagree with your point about those things being a problem, but I think GP’s interpretation of this article is correct:

> This power goes to the core of journalism’s public service, namely its capacity and obligation to artfully, eloquently, and intentionally use language to create and debate the ground truths that anchor shared social realities.

They are upset at being potentially replaced as one of the “few powerful” who get to create fundamental truths. These authors seem to really think controlling thought is the job, which seems pretty anti-freedom to me.

[keiferski]

For sure you could make an analogue between Luther with his princely backers and the fact that generative AI is currently dominated by a handful of corporations that (mostly) want to remove the power of traditional media. But just as the printing press was a global event that went way beyond the Reformation, I think generative AI will eventually be too big and widespread to be contained by a small number of organizations.

Edit: just to add another point, I don’t think the loss of trust in media has come from “the other side” attacking it. It’s come from the media’s own actions.

[continuitylimit]

Re your edit, if you re-read my op you should find we’re in agreement regarding the press’s standing and its causes.

Numerous assumptions are embedded in your optimistic analogy of printing press and machine learning systems, including continued access to general purpose computing devices (for the unwashed), data (and we can work our way up from just there to far flung concerns).

What is actually happening is that capital is no longer satisfied with owning the presses, but rather wants to own the language. That, erasure of the distinct concern of “journalism” (regardless of du jour state), via erosion of control over language and what is “correct”, is the actual issue.

Were these machines benevolent cyber prophets that were discerning ‘veritable truths’ about the human condition and thus their conditioning of the language and acceptable discourse a clear benefit, there would be no concern. But they are not, and again a reminder that the same people who own the press own the ai shops (class wise).

[keiferski]

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not sure I agree that’s what the future will be, and what the impact of the internet and generative AI will be. I think we’ll see a lot more of so-called “fringe” news, independent news, and so forth. People ultimately trust people more than machines, and so while generative AI might replace the traditional media, I don’t think it’ll replace the Joe Rogans of the world.