[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.