Certainly, no reader would have otherwise realised this article was written by AI. But it is also clear that, whilst the form and structure is excellent, the content is of a generic nature.
Where it does fall down, is that a better read human/journalist is going to be acutely aware of additional contextually relevant, and more specific information, that should maybe also be included.
AI is probably ideally suited for fiction writing and summaries of lengthy non-fiction tomes, but even so, can’t really be just left on its own without good proofreading.
There is a temptation to apply AI rules in a wonderfully objective manner to decision-making (such as legal disputes), with AI erasing human bias, as it can consult vast amounts of information and case law in a short period. But although we’d like human bias erased, there is still the social aspects and mitigating factors that often require human thought. Rules of ethics have also not yet been put in place to govern AI decision-making.
Clearly we have a long way to go still before AI can just operate on its own. Right now, it is probably a very useful aid in constructing fictional story lines, summarising vast amounts of information, doing the groundwork for legal cases, etc. But like with autopilot in vehicles, humans should be very careful not to just rely blindly on AI.
#technology #AI #journalism #artificialintelligence