I think you’re completely right with that assessment. Journalist used to be a reputable profession. And explaining things and processing raw information into something that can be consumed by the reader, deemed important. Especially getting it right. There is a whole process to it if you do it professionally. And curating content and deciding what is significant and gets an audience is equally as important.

Doing away with all of that is like replacing your New York Times with your 5-year-old and whatever she took from watching the news.

Uh yeah, I’m not sure. I’ve tried summarizing with AI tools. And there is the bot here on Lemmy that summarizes stuff… I never liked any of that. It’s really a mixed bag, from pretty okay summaries to entirely missing the point of the original article to bordering on false information. I think we’re far from there yet. However, it’s a common use-case for AI. Maybe in 1-2 years I can stop being afraid of misinformation being fed to me. Currently, I think the incorrectness of the information still outweighs any potential benefit. The more complicated it gets, thus making you in need of a summary in the first place, the more biased and skewed the results get. So I don’t see that happen in the very near future. But we definitely should keep up doing the research and pushing that.

Tagging and organizing is something I’d like an AI for.