by Mick Rhodes | editor@claremont-courier.com

Despite a reasonable amount of curiosity in staying somewhat engaged with the modern world, technology, and scientific innovation, as a man of a certain age, some things remain out of my grasp.

Artificial intelligence is among the advances with which I’m woefully behind the curve. And age is no excuse. Several months ago a much more ambitious, smart, and creative friend of mine who is about my age was professing his excitement about AI to me, not as a shortcut or a substitute for ingenuity, but as a fascinated observer of what it might mean for writers and publishers. Again, being old, my first reaction was, “How could you? Robots taking our jobs?” I thought he should have been righteously outraged. But he was fascinated, curious, and open to what AI could bring to the creative sphere. What a jerk.

Eventually, I came around to my smart friend’s way of thinking, not because I felt any less threatened by AI — I remain irrationally queasy — but because it’s too late for outrage: it’s here and it’s not going anywhere, and I may as well get used to it and stop with the windmill tilting already.

So, I set about consulting my people. My first stop, as per always with anything new, was my kids, who are always several steps ahead of their old man. Their levelheadedness about the whole thing (“Yeah dad, this has been a thing for a while now. It’s too late to be mad about it.”) helped to steady me.

My unease then led me to an idea: why not ask AI to write a column about itself? The result would no doubt be laughable, surely impersonal, and maybe even inaccurate. I’d hoped it would serve to quell my creeping dread.

I Googled “Free AI news story writer.” Up popped several options. I chose a free app called Ryte, created a log in, and was led to a screen asking me to select a language and a “voice,” with choices for everything from “convincing” to “joyful” to “worried.” I chose “casual.” For “use case” I had options that made sense — “blog section writing,” “call to action” — and others that seemed silly, such as “email response”; I mean, if someone needs a robot to answer their emails, then we’re truly doomed. I chose “newsletter,” as there was tab for “experimental column” or “lazy columnist.”

I then plugged in these prompts: Is AI good for journalism? Can AI replace humans in reporting news stories? What are the short- and long-term implications for newspapers utilizing AI?

The software then asked me how many variants I needed. I chose “one,” while stifling my fear of the word “variant” as dead-eyed, matter-of-fact killing machine, no doubt triggered by countless sci-fi films. It also asked how much creativity I wanted it to use to generate the story. This seemed innocuous enough until I pulled down the menu and saw — “optimal,” “none (more factual),” “low,” “medium,” “high,” and the chilling final option, “max (less factual).” Less factual? I chose “none,” and pressed go.

Here’s what I got:

“Subject: The Rise of AI in Journalism: Friend or Foe?

Hey there,

Have you been wondering about the role of AI in the world of journalism? It’s a fascinating topic that’s got a lot of people talking.

So, is AI good for journalism? Can it really replace human reporters in covering news stories? And what are the potential implications, both in the short and long term, if newspapers start relying more on AI?

Let’s dive in and explore these questions together.

First off, there are some potential upsides to using AI in journalism. It can help automate certain tasks, like sifting through massive datasets or generating basic news articles from structured data. This could free up human reporters to focus on more in-depth, investigative work.

AI-powered tools could also potentially spot trends and uncover stories that human journalists might miss. And the speed and efficiency of AI could allow news organizations to publish stories faster than ever before.

However, there are also some serious concerns about over-relying on AI in journalism. After all, machines can’t match the nuance, critical thinking, and storytelling abilities of human reporters. There’s a risk of losing the human touch and personal connections that are so vital to great journalism.

AI systems can also perpetuate biases and spread misinformation if they’re not carefully designed and monitored. Imagine a world where important news stories are generated entirely by algorithms – yikes!

In the long run, an over-reliance on AI could fundamentally change the nature of journalism, perhaps even putting many human reporters out of a job. That’s a scary prospect, both for the industry and for society as a whole.

So what’s the verdict? Well, it’s a complex issue without any easy answers. AI can be a useful tool in journalism, but it shouldn’t be seen as a replacement for human reporters. The key is finding the right balance and ensuring AI is used responsibly and ethically.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. What do you think about the rise of AI in journalism? I’d love to hear your take!

Catch you later,

[Your Name]”

Dammit. That robot wasn’t bad. I spent the rest of Monday moping around, wondering if I’d just seen the destroyer of my future or worse yet (much worse) the future of journalism.

Tuesday arrived with a fresh perspective. AI may be stampeding toward ubiquitousness, and yes, it’s capable of executing passable bits of journalism-esque writing based on simple commands, but as my robot clearly stated, after about three seconds, “… machines can’t match the nuance, critical thinking, and storytelling abilities of human reporters,” and it “shouldn’t be seen as a replacement for human reporters.”

Yeah. What “it” said. Us human journalists may not be able to crank out a passable column in three seconds, but we’re capable of nuance machines can only dream of. For now.

Do machines dream? I bet they’re working on it.