[itsibitzi]

I think people really don't understand the effort, care and risk that goes into producing quality reporting.

I work with investigative reporters on stories that take many months to produce. Every time we receive a leak there is an extensive process of proving public interest before we can even start looking at the material. Once we can see it in we have to be extremely careful with everything we note down to make sure that our work isn't seen as prejudiced if legal discovery happens. We're constantly going back and forth with our editorial legal team to make sure what we're saying is fair and accurate. And in the end, the people we're reporting are given a chance to refute any of the facts we're about to present. Any mistakes can result in legal action that can ruin the lives of reporters and shut down companies.

Now, imagine I were to go to a reporter who has spent 6 months working on a story about, for example, a high profile celebrity sexually assaulted multiple women, how the royal family hides their wealth and are exempt from laws, or how multinational corporations use legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes, and said, "oh, 1% of people reading this will likely be given some totally made up details".

Given that stories often have more than a million impressions, this would lead tens of thousands of people with potentially libellous "hallucinations".

It simply should not be allowed.

LLMs have their place, for sure, but presenting the news is not it.

[tokioyoyo]

Although I agree with every single sentence you've said, we've seen in the past decade how only very small percentage of people actually care about the content of the news. Everyone just discusses and gets their information from the headlines, so this is a natural consequence of "let's just summarize it to a couple of sentences since nobody reads it anyways".