AI: The Key to Academic Fame and Fortune
October 17, 2024
Just a humanoid processing information related to online services and information access.
Why would professors use smart software to “help” them with their scholarly papers? The question may have been answered in the Phys.org article “Analysis of Approximately 75 Million Publications Finds Those Employing AI Are More Likely to Be a ‘Hit Paper’” reports:
A new Northwestern University study analyzing 74.6 million publications, 7.1 million patents and 4.2 million university course syllabi finds papers that employ AI exhibit a “citation impact premium.” However, the benefits of AI do not extend equitably to women and minority researchers, and, as AI plays more important roles in accelerating science, it may exacerbate existing disparities in science, with implications for building a diverse, equitable and inclusive research workforce.
Years ago some universities had an “honor code”? I think the University of Virginia was one of those dinosaurs. Today professors are using smart software to help them crank out academic hits.
The write up continues by quoting a couple of the study’s authors (presumably without using smart software) as saying:
“These advances raise the possibility that, as AI continues to improve in accuracy, robustness and reach, it may bring even more meaningful benefits to science, propelling scientific progress across a wide range of research areas while significantly augmenting researchers’ innovation capabilities…”
What are the payoffs for the professors who probably take a dim view of their own children using AI to make life easier, faster, and smoother? Let’s look at a handful my team and I discussed:
- More money in the form of pay raises
- Better shot at grants for research
- Fame at conferences
- Groupies. I know it is hard to imagine but it happens. A lot.
- Awards
- Better committee assignments
- Consulting work.
When one considers the benefits from babes to bucks, the chit chat about doing better research is of little interest to professors who see virtue in smart software.
The president of Stanford cheated. The head of the Harvard Ethics department appears to have done it. The professors in the study sample did it. The conclusion: Smart software use is normative behavior.
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2024
Gee, Will the Gartner Group Consultants Require Upskilling?
October 16, 2024
The only smart software involved in producing this short FOGINT post was Microsoft Copilot’s estimable art generation tool. Why? It is offered at no cost.
I have a steady stream of baloney crossing my screen each day. I want to call attention to one of the most remarkable and unsupported statements I have seen in months. The PR document “Gartner Says Generative AI Will Require 80% of Engineering Workforce to Upskill Through 2027” contains a number of remarkable statements. Let’s look at a couple.
How an allegedly big time consultant is received in a secure artificial intelligence laboratory. Thanks, MSFT Copilot, good enough.
How about this one?
Through 2027, generative AI (GenAI) will spawn new roles in software engineering and operations, requiring 80% of the engineering workforce to upskill, according to Gartner, Inc.
My thought is that the virtual band of wizards which comprise Gartner cook up data the way I microwave a burrito when I am hungry. Pick a common number like the 80-20 Pareto figure. It is familiar and just use it. Personally I was disappointed that Gartner did not use 67 percent, but that’s just an old former blue chip consultant pointing out that round numbers are inherently suspicious. But does Gartner care? My hunch is that whoever reviewed the news release was happy with 80 percent. Did anyone question this number? Obviously not: There are zero supporting data, no information about how it was derived, and no hint of the methodology used by the incredible Gartner wizards. That’s a clue that these are microwaved burritos from a bulk purchase discount grocery.
How about this statement which cites a … wait for it … Gartner wizard as the source of the information?
“In the AI-native era, software engineers will adopt an ‘AI-first’ mindset, where they primarily focus on steering AI agents toward the most relevant context and constraints for a given task,” said Walsh. This will make natural-language prompt engineering and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) skills essential for software engineers.
I love the phrase “AI native” and I think dubbing the period from January 2023 when Microsoft demonstrated its marketing acumen by announcing the semi-tie up with OpenAI. The code generation systems help exactly what “engineer”? One has to know quite a bit to craft a query, examine the outputs, and do any touch ups to get the outputs working as marketed? The notion of “steering” ignores what may be an AI problem no one at Gartner has considered; for example, emergent patterns in the code generated. This means, “Surprise.” My hunch is that the idea of multi-layered neural networks behaving in a way that produces hitherto unnoticed patterns is of little interest to Gartner. That outfit wants to sell consulting work, not noodle about the notion of emergence which is a biased suite of computations. Steering is good for those who know what’s cooking and have a seat at the table in the kitchen. Is Gartner given access to the oven, the fridge, and the utensils? Nope.
Finally, how about this statement?
According to a Gartner survey conducted in the fourth quarter of 2023 among 300 U.S. and U.K. organizations, 56% of software engineering leaders rated AI/machine learning (ML) engineer as the most in-demand role for 2024, and they rated applying AI/ML to applications as the biggest skills gap.
Okay, this is late 2024 (October to be exact). The study data are a year old. So far the outputs of smart coding systems remain a work in progress. In fact, Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder has a short video which explains why the smart AI programmer in a box may be more disappointing than other hyperbole artists claim. If you want Dr. Hossenfelder’s view, click here. In a nutshell, she explains in a very nice way about the giant bologna slide plopped on many diners’ plates. The study Dr. Hossenfelder cites suggests that productivity boosts are another slice of bologna. The 41 percent increase in bugs provides a hint of the problems the good doctor notes.
Net net: I wish the cited article WERE generated by smart software. What makes me nervous is that I think real, live humans cooked up something similar to a boiled shoe. Let me ask a more significant question. Will Gartner experts require upskilling for the new world of smart software? The answer is, “Yes.” Even today’s sketchy AI outputs information often more believable that this Gartner 80 percent confection.
Stephen E Arnold, October 16, 2024
Deepfake Crime Surges With Scams
October 16, 2024
Just a humanoid processing information related to online services and information access.
Everyone with a brain knew that deepfakes, AI generated images, videos, and audio, would be used for crime. According to the Global Newswire, “Deepfake Fraud Doubles Down: 49% of Businesses Now Hit By Audio and Video Scams, Regula’s Survey Reveals.” Regula is a global developer of ID verification and forensic devices. The company released the survey: “The Deepfake Trends 2024” and it revealed some disturbing trends.
Regula’s survey discovered that there’s a 20% increase in deepfake videos from 2022. Meanwhile, fraud decision-makers across the globe reported a 49% increase encounter deepfakes and there’s also a 12% rise in fake audio. What’s even more interesting is that bad actors are still using old methods for identity fraud scams:
“As Regula’s survey shows, 58% of businesses globally have experienced identity fraud in the form of fake or modified documents. This happens to be the top identity fraud method for Mexico (70%), the UAE (66%), the US (59%), and Germany (59%). This implies that not only do businesses have to adapt their verification methods to deal with new threats, but they also are forced to combat old threats that continue to pose a significant challenge.”
Deepfakes will only get more advanced and worse. Bad actors and technology are like the illnesses: they evolve every season with new ways to make people sick while still delivering the common cold.
Whitney Grace, October 16, 2024
AI Guru Says, “Yep, AI Doom Is Coming.” Have a Nice Day
October 15, 2024
Just a humanoid processing information related to online services and information access.
In science-fiction stories, it is a common storyline for the creator to turn against their creation. These stories serve as a warning to humanity of Titanic proportions: keep your ego in check. The Godfather of AI, Yoshua Bengio advices the same except not in so many words and he applies it to AI, as reported by Live Science: “Humanity Faces A ‘Catastrophic’ Future If We Don’t Regulate AI, ‘Godfather of AI’ Yoshua Bengio Says.”
Bengio is correct. He’s also a leading expert in artificial intelligence, pioneer in creating artificial neural networks and deep learning algorithms, and won the Turing Award in 2018. He is also. The chair of the International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI, an advisory panel backed by the UN, EU, and 30 nations. Bengio believes that AI, because it is quickly being developed and adopted, will irrevocably harm human society.
He recently spoke at the HowTheLightGetsIn Festival in London about AI developing sentience and its associated risks. In his discussion, he says he backed off from his work because AI was moving too fast. He wanted to slow down AI development so humans would take more control of the technology.
He advises that governments enforce safety plans and regulations on AI. Bengio doesn’t want society to become too reliant on AI technology, then, if there was a catastrophe, humans would be left to pick up the broken pieces. Big Tech companies are also using a lot more energy than the report, especially on their data centers. Big Tech companies are anything but green.
Thankfully Big Tech is talking precautions against AI becoming dangerous threats. He cites the AI Safety Institute’s in the US and UK working on test models. Bengio wants AI to be developed but not unregulated and he wants nations to find common ground for the good of all:
“It’s not that we’re going to stop innovation, you can direct efforts in directions that build tools that will definitely help the economy and the well-being of people. So it’s a false argument.
We have regulation on almost everything, from your sandwich, to your car, to the planes you take. Before we had regulation we had orders of magnitude more accidents. It’s the same with pharmaceuticals. We can have technology that’s helpful and regulated, that is the thing that’s worked for us.
The second argument is that if the West slows down because we want to be cautious, then China is going to leap forward and use the technology against us. That’s a real concern, but the solution isn’t to just accelerate as well without caution, because that presents the problem of an arms race.
The solution is a middle ground, where we talk to the Chinese and we come to an understanding that’s in our mutual interest in avoiding major catastrophes. We sign treaties and we work on verification technologies so we can trust each other that we’re not doing anything dangerous. That’s what we need to do so we can both be cautious and move together for the well-being of the planet.”
Will this happen? Maybe.
The problem is countries don’t want to work together and each wants to be the most powerful in the world.
Whitney Grace, October 15, 2024
AI: New Atlas Sees AI Headed in a New Direction
October 11, 2024
I like the premise of “AI Begins Its Ominous Split Away from Human Thinking.” Neural nets trained by humans on human information are going in their own direction. Whom do we thank? The neural net researchers? The Googlers who conceived of “the transformer”? The online advertisers who have provided significant sums of money? The “invisible hand” tapping on a virtual keyboard? Maybe quantum entanglement? I don’t know.
I do know that New Atlas’ article states:
AIs have a big problem with truth and correctness – and human thinking appears to be a big part of that problem. A new generation of AI is now starting to take a much more experimental approach that could catapult machine learning way past humans.
But isn’t that the point? The high school science club types beavering away in the smart software vineyards know the catchphrase:
Boldly go where no man has gone before!
The big outfits able to buy fancy chips and try to start mothballed nuclear plants have “boldly go where no man has gone before.” Get in the way of one of these captains of the star ship US AI, and you will be terminated, harassed, or forced to quit. If you are not boldly going, you are just not going.
The article says ChatGPT 4 whatever is:
… the first LLM that’s really starting to create that strange, but super-effective AlphaGo-style ‘understanding’ of problem spaces. In the domains where it’s now surpassing Ph.D.-level capabilities and knowledge, it got there essentially by trial and error, by chancing upon the correct answers over millions of self-generated attempts, and by building up its own theories of what’s a useful reasoning step and what’s not.
But, hey, it is pretty clear where AI is going from New Atlas’ perch:
OpenAI’s o1 model might not look like a quantum leap forward, sitting there in GPT’s drab textual clothing, looking like just another invisible terminal typist. But it really is a step-change in the development of AI – and a fleeting glimpse into exactly how these alien machines will eventually overtake humans in every conceivable way.
But if the AI goes its own way, how can a human “conceive” where the software is going?
Doom and fear work for the evening news (or what passes for the evening news). I think there is a cottage industry of AI doomsters working diligently to stop some people from fooling around with smart software. That is not going to work. Plus, the magical “transformer” thing is a culmination of years of prior work. It is simply one more step in the more than 50 year effort to process content.
This “stage” seems to have some utility, but more innovations will come. They have to. I am not sure how one stops people with money hunting for people who can say, “I have the next big thing in AI.”
Sorry, New Atlas, I am not convinced. Plus, I don’t watch movies or buy into most AI wackiness.
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2024
Cyber Criminals Rejoice: Quick Fraud Development Kit Announced
October 11, 2024
This blog post did not require the use of smart software, just a dumb humanoid.I am not sure the well-organized and managed OpenAI intended to make cyber criminals excited about their future prospects. Several Twitter enthusiasts pointed out that OpenAI makes it possible to develop an app in 30 seconds. Prashant posted:
App development is gonna change forever after today. OpenAI can build an iPhone app in 30 seconds with a single prompt. [emphasis added]
The expert demonstrating this programming capability was Romain Huet. The announcement of the capability débuted at OpenAI’s Dev Day.
A clueless dinobaby is not sure what this group of youngsters is talking about. An app? Pictures of a slumber party? Thanks, MSFT Copilot, good enough.
What’s a single prompt mean? That’s not clear to me at the moment. Time is required to assemble the prompt, run it, check the outputs, and then fiddle with the prompt. Once the prompt is in hand, then it is easy to pop it into o1 and marvel at the 30 second output. Instead of coding, one prompts. Zip up that text file and sell it on Telegram. Make big bucks or little STARS and TONcoins. With some cartwheels, it is sort of money.
Is this quicker that other methods of cooking up an app; for example, some folks can do some snappy app development with Telegram’s BotFather service?
Let’s step back from the 30-second PR event.
Several observations are warranted.
First, programming certain types of software is becoming easier using smart software. That means that a bad actor may be able to craft a phishing play more quickly.
Second, specialized skills embedded in smart software open the door to scam automation. Scripts can generate other needed features of a scam. What once was a simple automated bogus email becomes an orchestrated series of actions.
Third, the increasing cross-model integration suggests that a bad actor will be able to add a video or audio delivering a personalized message. With some fiddling, a scam can use a phone call to a target and follow that up with an email. To cap off the scam, a machine-generated Zoom-type video call makes a case for the desired action.
The key point is that legitimate companies may want to have people they manage create a software application. However, is it possible that smart software vendors are injecting steroids into a market given little thought by most people? What is that market? I am thinking that bad actors are often among the earlier adopters of new, low cost, open source, powerful digital tools.
I like the gee whiz factor of the OpenAI announcement. But my enthusiasm is a fraction of that experienced by bad actors. Sometimes restraint and judgment may be more helpful than “wow, look at what we have created” show-and-tell presentations. Remember. I am a dinobaby and hopelessly out of step with modern notions of appropriateness. I like it that way.
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2024
Google Pulls Off a Unique Monopoly Play: Redefining Disciplines and Winning Awards
October 10, 2024
The only smart software involved in producing this short FOGINT post was Microsoft Copilot’s estimable art generation tool. Why? It is offered at no cost.
The monopolists of the past are a storied group of hard-workers. The luminaries blazing a path to glory have included John D. Rockefeller (the 1911 guy), J.P. Morgan and James J. Hill (railroads and genetic material contributor to JP Morgan and MorganStanley circa 2024, James B. Duke (nope, smoking is good for you), Andrew Carnegie (hey, he built “free” public libraries which are on the radar of today’s publishers I think), and Edward T. Bedford (starch seem unexciting until you own the business). None of these players were able to redefine Nobel Prizes.
A member of Google leadership explains to his daughter (who is not allowed to use smart software for her private school homework or her tutor’s assignments) that the Google is a bit like JP Morgan but better in so many other ways. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How are the Windows 11 updates and the security fixes today?
The Google pulled it off. One Xoogler (that is the jargon for a former Google professional) and one honest-to-goodness chess whiz Googler won Nobel Prizes. Fortune Magazine reported that Geoffrey Hinton (the Xoogler) won a Nobel Prize for … wait for it … physics. Yep, the discipline associated with chasing dark matter and making thermonuclear bombs into everyday words really means smart software or the undefinable phrase “artificial intelligence.” Some physicists are wondering how one moves from calculating the mass of a proton to helping college students cheat. Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder asks, “Hello, Stockholm, where is our Nobel?” The answer is, “Politics, money, and publicity, Dr. Hossenfelder.” These are the three ingredients of achievement.
But wait! Google also won a Nobel Prize for … wait for it … chemistry. Yep, you remember high school chemistry class. Jars, experiments which don’t match the textbook, and wafts of foul smelling gas getting sucked into the lab’s super crappy air venting system. The Verge reported on how important computation chemistry is to the future of money-spinning confections like the 2020 virus of the year. The poohbahs (journalist-consultant-experts) at that publication with nary a comment about smart software which made the “chemistry” of Google do in “minutes” what ordinary computational chemistry solutions take hours longer to accomplish.
The Google and Xoogle winners are very smart people. Google, however, has done what the schlubs like J.P. Morgan could never accomplish: Redefine basic scientific disciplines. Physics means neural networks. Chemistry means repurposing a system to win chess games.
I suppose with AI eliminating the need for future students to learn. “University Professor ‘Terrified’ By The Sharp Decline In Student Performance — ’The Worst I’ve Ever Encountered’” quoted a college professor as saying:
The professor said her students ‘don’t read,’ write terrible essays, and ‘don’t even try’ in her class. The professor went on to say that when she recently assigned an exam focused on a reading selection, she "had numerous students inquire if it’s open book." That is, of course, preposterous — the entire point of a reading exam is to test your comprehension of the reading you were supposed to do! But that’s just it — she said her students simply "don’t read."
That makes sense. Physics is smart software; chemistry is smart software. Uninformed student won’t know the difference. What’s the big deal? That’s a super special insight into the zing in teaching and learning.
What’s the impact of these awards? In my opinion:
- The reorganization of DeepMind where the Googler is the Top Dog has been scrubbed of management hoo-hah by the award.
- The Xoogler will have an ample opportunity to explain that smart software will destroy mankind. That’s possible because the intellectual rot has already spread to students.
- The Google itself can now explain that it is not a monopoly. How is this possible? Simple. Physics is not about the goings on at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Chemistry is not dumping diluted hydrochloric acid into a beaker filled calcium carbide. It makes perfect sense to explain that Google is NOT a monopoly.
But the real payoff to the two awards is that Google’s management team can say:
Those losers like John D. Rockefeller, JP Morgan, the cigarette person, the corn starch king, and the tight fisted fellow from someplace with sheep are not smart like the Google. And, the Google leadership is indeed correct. That’s why life is so much better with search engine optimization, irrelevant search results, non-stop invasive advertising, a disable skip this ad button, and the remarkable Google speak which accompanies another allegation of illegal business conduct from a growing number of the 195 countries in the world.
That’s a win that old-timey monopolists could not put in their account books.
Stephen E Arnold, October 10, 2024
What Can Cyber Criminals Learn from Automated Ad Systems?
October 10, 2024
The only smart software involved in producing this short FOGINT post was Microsoft Copilot’s estimable art generation tool. Why? It is offered at no cost.
My personal opinion is that most online advertising is darned close to suspicious or outright legal behavior. “New,” “improved,” “Revolutionary” — Sure, I believe every online advertisement. But consider this: For hundreds of years those in the advertising business urged a bit of elasticity with reality. Sure, Duz does it. As a dinobaby, I assert that most people in advertising and marketing assume that reality and a product occupy different parts of a data space. Consequently most people — not just marketers, advertising executives, copywriters, and prompt engineers. I mean everyone.
An ad sales professional explains the benefits of Facebook, Google, and TikTok-type of sales. Instead of razor blades just sell ransomware as stolen credit cards. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How are those security remediation projects with anti-malware vendors coming? Oh, sorry to hear that.
With a common mindset, I think it is helpful to consider the main points of “TikTok Joins the AI-Driven Advertising Pack to Compete with Meta for Ad Dollars.” The article makes clear that Google and Meta have automated the world of Madison Avenue. Not only is work mechanical, that work is informed by smart software. The implications for those who work the old fashioned way over long lunches and golf outings are that work methods themselves are changing.
The estimable TikTok is beavering away to replicate the smart ad systems of companies like the even more estimable Facebook and Google type companies. If TikTok is lucky as only an outfit linked with a powerful nation state can be, a bit of competition may find its way into the hardened black boxes of the digital replacement for Madison Avenue.
The write up says:
The pitch is all about simplicity and speed — no more weeks of guesswork and endless A/B testing, according to Adolfo Fernandez, TikTok’s director, global head of product strategy and operations, commerce. With TikTok’s AI already trained on what drives successful ad campaigns on the platform, advertisers can expect quick wins with less hassle, he added. The same goes for creative; Smart+ is linked to TikTok’s other AI tool, Symphony, designed to help marketers generate and refine ad concepts.
Okay, knowledge about who clicks what plus automation means less revenue for the existing automated ad system purveyors. The ideas are information about users, smart software, and automation to deliver “simplicity and speed.” Go fast, break things; namely, revenue streams flowing to Facebook and Google.
Why? Here’s a statement from the article answering the question:
TikTok’s worldwide ad revenue is expected to reach $22.32 billion by the end of the year, and increase 27.3% to $28.42 billion by the end of 2025, according to eMarketer’s March 2024 forecast. By comparison, Meta’s worldwide ad revenue is expected to total $154.16 billion by the end of this year, increasing 23.2% to $173.92 billion by the end of 2025, per eMarketer. “Automation is a key step for us as we enable advertisers to further invest in TikTok and achieve even greater return on investment,” David Kaufman, TikTok’s global head of monetization product and solutions, said during the TikTok.
I understand. Now let’s shift gears and ask, “What can bad actors learn from this seemingly routine report about jockeying among social media giants?”
Here are the lessons I think a person inclined to ignore laws and what’s left of the quaint notion of ethical behavior:
- These “smart” systems can be used to advertise bogus or non existent products to deliver ransomware, stealers, or other questionable software
- The mechanisms for automating phishing are simple enough for an art history or poli-sci major to use; therefore, a reasonably clever bad actor can whip up an automated phishing system without too much trouble. For those who need help, there are outfits like Telegram with its BotFather or helpful people advertising specialized skills on assorted Web forums and social media
- The reason to automate are simple: Better, faster, cheaper. Plus, with some useful data about a “market segment”, the malware can be tailored to hot buttons that are hard wired to a sucker’s nervous system.
- Users do click even when informed that some clicks mean a lost bank account or a stolen identity.
Is there a fix for articles which inform both those desperate to find a way to tell people in Toledo, Ohio, that you own a business selling aftermarket 22 inch wheels and alert bad actors to the wonders of automation and smart software? Nope. Isn’t online marketing a big win for everyone? And what if TikTok delivers a very subtle type of malware? Simple and efficient.
Stephen E Arnold, October 10, 2024
AI Podcasters Are Reviewing Books Now
October 10, 2024
I read an article about how students are using AI to cheat on homework and receive book summaries. Students especially favor AI voices reading to them. I wasn’t surprised by that, because this generation is more visual and audial than others. What astounded me, however, was that AI is doing more than I expected such as reading and reviewing books according to ArsTechnica: “Fake AI “Podcasters” Are Reviewing My Book And It’s Freaking Me Out.”
Kyle Orland has followed generative AI for a while. He also recently wrote a book about Minesweeper. He was as astounded as me when we heard to AI generated podcasters discussing his book into a 12.5 minute distilled show. The chatbots were “engaging and endearing.” They were automated by Google’s new NotebookLM, a virtual research assistant that can summarize, explain complex ideas, and brainstorm from selected sources. Google recently added the Audio Overview feature to turn documents into audio discussions.
Orland fed his 30,000 word Minesweeper book into NotebookLM and he was amazed that it spat out a podcast similar to NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour. It did get include errors but as long as it wasn’t being used for serious research, Orland was cool with it:
“Small, overzealous errors like these—and a few key bits of the book left out of the podcast entirely—would give me pause if I were trying to use a NotebookLM summary as the basis for a scholarly article or piece of journalism. But I could see using a summary like this to get some quick Cliff’s Notes-style grounding on a thick tome I didn’t have the time or inclination to read fully. And, unlike poring through Cliff’s Notes, the pithy, podcast-style format would actually make for enjoyable background noise while out on a walk or running errands.”
Orland thinks generative AI chatbot podcasts will be an enjoyable and viable entertainment option in the future. They probably will. There’s actually a lot of creative ways creators could use AI chatbots to generate content from their own imaginations. It’s worrisome but also gets the creative juices flowing.
Whitney Grace October 10, 2024
AI Help for Struggling Journalists. Absolutely
October 10, 2024
Writers, artists, and other creatives have labeled AI as their doom of their industries and livelihoods. Generative AI Newsroom explains one way that AI could be helpful to writers: “How Teams of AI Agents Could Provide Valuable Leads For Investigative Data Journalism.” Investigative and data journalism requires the teamwork of many individuals. Due to the teamwork of the journalists, they create impactful stories.
Media outlets experimented with adding generative AI to journalism and it wasn’t successful. The information was inaccurate and very specific instructions. While OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot seems intuitive with its Q and A interface, investigative journalism requires a more robust AI.
Investigative journalism and other writing vocations require team work, so AI for those jobs could benefit from it too. The Generative AI Newsroom is working on an AI that would assist journalists:
“Specifically, we developed a prototype system that, when provided with a dataset and a description of its contents, generates a “tip sheet” — a list of newsworthy observations that may inspire further journalistic explorations of datasets. Behind the scenes, this system employs three AI agents, emulating the roles of a data analyst, an investigative reporter, and a data editor. To carry out our agentic workflow, we utilized GPT-4-turbo via OpenAI’s Assistants API, which allows the model to iteratively execute code and interact with the results of data analyses.”
A human journalist, editor, and analyst works with the AI:
“In our setup, the analyst is made responsible for turning journalistic questions into quantitative analyses. It conducts the analysis, interprets the results, and feeds these insights into the broader process. The reporter, meanwhile, generates the questions, pushes the analyst with follow-ups to guide the process towards something newsworthy, and distills the key findings into something meaningful. The editor, then, mainly steps in as the quality control, ensuring the integrity of the work, bulletproofing the analysis, and pushing the outputs towards factual accuracy.”
The AI is still in its testing phase but it sounds like a viable tool to incorporate AI into media outlets. While humans are an integral part of the process, what happens when the AI becomes better at storytelling than humans? It is possible. Where does the human role come in then?
Whitney Grace, October 10, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
