[WarOnPrivacy]

There are five or six whole pages of puffery about how amazing the NY Times thinks the NY Times is, followed by the laughably stupid claim that generative AI "threatens" the kind of journalism the NY Times produces.

Let me let you in on a little secret: if you think that generative AI can do serious journalism better than a massive organization with a huge number of reporters, then, um, you deserve to go out of business.

For all the puffery about the amazing work of the NY Times, this seems to suggest that it can easily be replaced by an auto-complete machine.

I've no disdain for the NYT but they can be absolutely wrongheaded sometimes - particularly when it involves technology. This last bit is certainly not limited to the NYT (and inc much of tech press).

From Section 230 to copyright to surveillance to social media to whatever nonsense is claimed by FBI directors - it seems like the staff's reasoning gets paid time off whenever tech is on the table.

[up2isomorphism]

“ Let me let you in on a little secret: if you think that generative AI can do serious journalism better than a massive organization with a huge number of reporters, then, um, you deserve to go out of business.”

Not when your better journalism can be “transformed” for free and sold as a fractional of the price.

It should be quite simple that if NYT is not that good anyway don’t use it in your training. But if you use it you should pay, isn’t that obvious?