[VMG]

Step 2: outlets slap this disclaimer on all content, regardless of AI usage, making it useless

Step 3: regulator prohibits putting label on content that is not AI generated

Step 4: outlets make sure to use AI for all content

Let's call it the "Sesame effect"

[NicuCalcea]

This would be an improvement in my book.

I'm a data journalist, and I use AI in some of my work (data processing, classification, OCR, etc.). I always disclose it in a "Methodology" section in the story. I wouldn't trust any reporting that didn't disclose the use of AI, and if an outlet slapped a disclaimer on their entire site, I wouldn't trust that outlet.

[terminalshort]

So every time a reporter researches something and does a Google search and Gemini results pop up now AI use has to be added to the methodology section and basically 100% of all articles have the "AI use" label attached.

[shimman]

Yes because it would tell me immediately that the reporter can be safely ignored.

[AngryData]

Yes, just the same as I would expect an encyclopedia reference called out for not being a primary source of a declared fact.

[NicuCalcea]

If they use the information from the AI summary without checking, then definitely, they'd be a rubbish reporter.

[jacquesm]

Or

Step 1: those outlets that actually do the work see an increase in subscribers.

[orwin]

Alternative timeline

Step 2.5: 'unlike those news outlets, all our work is verified by humans'

Step 3: work as intended.