• sunbeam60@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are forgetting a cardinal rule: When something is likely to affect the press, the press affords it more attention.

    So the writers, editors, graphic designers etc of the press are likely to be very affected by generative AI. So they worry about it. So they write about it.

    I’m also in a line of work that will see substantial changes … so I understand their plight. But I think a large part of the reason the press write about the use of genAI to make “art output” is that they worry about genAI will make their “art output” soon.

    • SomeGuyNamedPaul@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      “So they write about it” with AI assistance. It can easily be argued that modern word processor software has some level of AI in it.

      She: What kind of woman do you think I am?

      He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.

      Same story, it’s just a question to what extent the software moves from being an unacceptable amount of assistance as a tool. Sports equipment follows the same story, at some point it’s regarded as cheating, we just haven’t established what that line is. Clearly there are people who don’t care what that line is and so long as it represents a competitive advantage to ignore that line then people will freely cross it.

    • zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Considering a good chunk of US media is just ingesting Reuters and adding a spin to it, I’m not surprised.