aifaq.wtf

I wasn't there, but I cite this tweet like every hour of every day.

I'm going to be honest with you, I hate this article: it's a lot of "oh we're ALMOST THERE" kind of hand-wavy talk. The reality of journalism is that the details and being absolutely correct are the only things that matter.

I'd just like to note that every single time there have been big error-ful articles produced by AI, it was always in "collaboration with" or "edited by" a human, despite the remarkable number of errors. In its current state this stuff only works on reader-facing content if you invest a lot of the resources that you thought you'd be saving on.

In these situations the vibes are always right but the details are typically off – you probably wouldn't notice it as a non-expert, though! It's the visual version of Knoll's Law of Media Accuracy: "everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge."

While generative text is reasonable from my point of view, replacing comic artists with AI seems remarkably scummy.