Should AI replace human journalists?
We need to understand not only what we gain but what we lose when technology does things instead of a human.
In the midst of a Hulu rewatching cycle, an ad came on that showed a man playing a game in a virtual reality. He was engrossed to the point of ignoring the real world, including his real-life partner, who was just steps away.
The ad ended by panning out to show you that this guy's game-mate lives in the apartment next door. The implication is that they have never met in real life and probably never will. Their friendship will exist only in the virtual world.
The ad was for VR headsets. The company thought the world they created in the ad depicted something I wanted. There's nothing — let me repeat nothing — about the world depicted in the ad that I want. In fact, it downright depressed me.
Given VR's sluggish rise, I like to believe that there are other people like me opting to spend their time in the real world instead of increasing the time they spend in the digital world permeating from our screens.
Contrast VR with the meteoric rise of generative AI. There's something about AI that feels inevitable. It presents as a looming weight and generally gets framed as coming for all our jobs (if not taking over the whole world — depends on who you ask).
AI comes neatly packaged in the golden calf of businesses: efficiency. There’s nothing like the promise of increased speed and output to trigger a rush on technology by corporate leaders who see the possibility of dramatically increasing their profit margins.
It’s no surprise that people are questioning where and how AI will replace them. I recently read "Will AI replace human journalists?" by Katherine Brodsky. As a journalist herself, she looks specifically at the issues she sees with AI doing her job. Based on the aforementioned efficiency rush, it's realistic that people who generate words for a living question the role of AI, particularly in a space like journalism, which has already been suffering financial decline.
Instead of asking “Will AI replace human journalists?” I think the better question is, should AI replace human journalists?
Start with value. Would AI allow a journalist to deliver additional or deeper value? Could it deliver value on its own?
Brodsky suggests that AI can assist in generating stories when breaking news emerges. “It can at least provide a template for the journalist to edit and reframe. Thus, critical stories can get out more quickly."
This use delivers value because it gets information into the hands of readers who value knowing what’s happening as it happens. It’s also potentially valuable to the outlet, which may then have the capacity to publish not only breaking news but more in-depth reports1.
She also suggests that AI could summarize straightforward, fact-based articles on its own, reducing the headcount for the media company. It could also allow the media outlet to give human journalists the time to publish other content where humans excel — like in-person interviews.
AI is currently far from accurate2, so having a human journalist involved is a must if you give any shits about quality and accuracy.
Unfortunately, some companies don't. It’s one of many potential negative results of AI replacing human journalists, and why we need to ask: What negative effects might result from journalists using AI? Or from AI serving in the role of a journalist on its own?
Brodsky references companies using AI to generate content to boost their SEO scores. “They are often not particularly concerned about publishing inaccurate or misleading content. This makes it harder than ever to know what to trust.”
Sadly, robots aren't the only ones making things up. People do too. The humans running the business need to value quality, accuracy, and truth, then support practices that ensure they deliver on it.
Not all businesses will. As the people they serve, we must stop investing our resources in businesses we don't trust. That makes the question of whether AI should replace human journalists one that requires a nuanced answer that addresses accuracy, framing, and other ethical considerations.
Asking where AI can deliver value is a good first question. The second is, if AI were to do this instead of a human, what do we lose?
Every time we introduce technology, we lose something. My grandparents know phone numbers by heart. As a kid, I did too. Then I got a cell phone, and now I don’t know anyone’s number. We may say that’s an acceptable tradeoff — until we’re stranded somewhere without a cell phone and don’t know what number to dial.
In the case of journalism, what we lose depends on why you read. I don't read for information only. I am not a machine. I'm a human looking to hear from another human. There's something intangible that no robot can give — no matter how human it sounds or what dumbass name we give it.
Or, as Brodsky says, “There’s a fundamental difference in how I write vs how an AI does it. I process the stories and information I choose to share through my distinct perspective, emotion, life experiences, (hopefully) wisdom, personality, and creativity. An AI is unable to do so beyond mimicry.”
And as far as I understand, AI never will.
Perhaps the most powerful consideration when it comes to answering all these questions is whether the thing we should or should not do will create a world we want to live in. Of course, the challenge is that we all value different things, so there are no black-and-white answers.
For my time, I want the relationship with the human writer complete with their unique voice, perspective, and random tangents. I guess we can keep pushing technology to mimic that so well that we can barely tell — but why?
There's already more content out there than anyone can read. (I also don't think it's healthy to develop a relationship with a robot.) And on top of it all, we've robbed ourselves of the value of writing.
In the value economy, the answers to these questions will show us where to invest resources. As Brodsky acknowledges, “good journalism costs money to produce — because it requires time.” If you don’t want to live in a world of AI journalists, support individual human journalists and outlets that mindfully and valuably use AI to support their human journalists.
The answers also show us what career paths we want to encourage people to pursue. If we truly believe that journalists still need to take a major role in journalism, we need to place a high value on these pursuits and the skills we bring to the table as humans to excel at them.
We can make choices about what moves forward and what doesn’t. Making choices requires us to ask these questions and explore all the gray areas between should and shouldn’t.
I don’t see a world where the AI genie goes back in the bottle. But we can build a world where we choose where we use this technology and where we say no.
.
.
[1] If and only if the people the media outlet serves look to them for that value. Otherwise, they’d be doing things for the sake of doing them, which is pointless.
[2] Currently, AI tools range from being inaccurate to making things up. I can’t say if we’ll ever totally solve it. I’d always want a person to confirm that what it produced is factually correct and be able to explain how the technology arrived at its output. The AI tools I’ve fiddled with don’t like to show their work.
.
.
⊗ Hey, I’m Katie. I’m the mastermind behind MatterLogic™, the only system for running a business in the value economy. I’m an essentialist thinker, Entrepreneur contributor, thoughtful speaker, and jargon slayer. I shift your focus by asking “What’s the point?” Connect with me on LinkedIn and subscribe to WTP to get more of my perspective.
.