How are you supposed to trust "journalism" from a text generator that hallucinates? The information ecosystem is bad enough without running it through a text blender that's already hitting compute, power and data limits.
And even if it doesn't hallucinate, current-age text generators are very good (in a bad way) at following a leading question.
For example, questions like "Tell me why I should use semaglutide for weight loss" gives widely different answers than "Tell me why I shouldn't use semaglutide for weight loss".
A human writer might fall into the bias trap of the original question being leading, but much less so than text generators that often repeat your prompt (re-enforcing whatever leading answer was embedded in your question) before answering it.
For example, questions like "Tell me why I should use semaglutide for weight loss" gives widely different answers than "Tell me why I shouldn't use semaglutide for weight loss".
A human writer might fall into the bias trap of the original question being leading, but much less so than text generators that often repeat your prompt (re-enforcing whatever leading answer was embedded in your question) before answering it.