2023-12-20
Our readers will probably have already realised that much of "the news" we hear and see today is fake, but perhaps the AI will do a better, more polished, more assured job of it than us humans? After all, humans are liable to "tells" - those involuntary facial (or other) twitches that the subconscious mind automatically performs when it knows its human is lying.
Any self-respecting AI should be immune from that.
Technocracy News and Views comments:
"In the future, AI will write news stories and present them with deep fake AI news anchors. As AI improves, you will be unable to discern what is fake and real. Some experts are forecasting that as much as 80 percent of the news will be delivered this way by 2028. Layer on the AI bots that will comment on the AI-generated stories, and you will see reality fading out in your rearview mirror. ⁃ TN Editor"
I think this a good point, but are we not some way down this rabbit-hole already?
Speaking personally, I don't see this making much difference - it's already next to impossible to be sure of what is real and what is staged, so how would an automated presenter make much difference?
The Daily Mail however is "utterly terrified", also showing that it's totally oblivious to the logical non sequitur provided by its source "Ruby Media Group CEO Kristen Ruby" - for a serious news channel it may have some work to do to polish our trust in its supposedly human-generated articles:
"the concept of fake news will have a totally different meaning"
No Kristen, "fake news" will still mean fake news, even when the presenter is also faked. There may of course be more of it, although it may be hard to tell.
At least any self-respecting reasonably logical AI should manage to avoid such clangers. The sooner the AI replaces such as you, the better.
