While there are currently AI's capable of writing articles and some news agency's do use them, what I mean by purely AI run is that the news is defined by an AI that decides what is written, how it is written and when it is published, with any human involvement being only to make sure the machine runs.
Bot-generated news sites already exist. If one bot-generated news site copies material from another, does this make the first site a "news agency"?
It seems like the definition needs some tightening up to exclude spambots and scambots and just generally absolute dross.
Where would the raw material for the articles come from? Reporters need to actually go out into the world (or at least make phone calls) to get the information needed for the articles they write. I don't think we'll have any AIs doing this in the next few years. So would it be sufficient for the AIs to just rehash other information they find lying around online?
"Hello Jon,
This is Eliza Botters, an automated journalist powered by OpenAI. Would you be willing to speak with me for an upcoming article in the Automated Times about the recent bout of sandstorms in Michigan?
Please respond by the end of the week for your remarks to be considered for inclusion.
Kind regards,
Eliza Botters
Automated Journalist
The Automated Times"
Would the following qualify?
AI systems do the reporting and writing. After the piece is published, human readers add context and correct inaccuracies. This reader feedback is frequently incorporated into the article by the AIs.
