 |
|
|
|||||
If you’ve been paying attention to AI at all lately, you’ve certainly seen the “Something Big Is Happening” essay by Matt Shumer, or at least some of the reaction to it. In it, Shumer describes how coding, for him, has completely transitioned from manually writing code to simply prompting and approving the near-flawless work done by AI. The piece was meant as a warning to all knowledge workers, essentially saying: AI has taken over my job, and it’s coming for yours next. There have been countless thought pieces on the merits and flaws of Shumer’s argument, and I have no intention of adding to the pile. But journalism is knowledge work, too, and the field had its own, slightly less viral, moment of AI existential crisis this past week. The editor of Cleveland.com, Chris Quinn, wrote a column this week, describing how a college student who had applied for a reporting job withdrew their application when they found out how the publication uses AI. Besides using AI to help generate story ideas, the newsroom developed an “AI rewrite specialist” to write stories based on the material that reporters gather. By ditching writing, according to Quinn, their reporters have been able to reclaim an extra workday each week. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/media-copilot.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/fe289316-bc4f-44ef-96bf-148b3d8578c1_1440x1440.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to The Media Copilot\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for The Media Copilot. To learn more visit \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/\u0022\u003Emediacopilot.substack.com\u003C\/a\u003E","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"SIGN UP","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","theme":{"bg":"#f5f5f5","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91453847,"imageMobileId":91453848,"shareable":false,"slug":""}} The backlash was predictably vicious. On X, Axios reporter Sam Allard earned a lot of likes by comparing what Cleveland.com is doing to being an “AI content farmer,” while various veteran journalists on Substack expressed various degrees of outrage and dismay. Most of the reaction was along the lines of this piece from journalist Stacey Woelfel: “Writing is an integral part of the reporting process.” The AI newsroom split That’s true, but I think what Quinn describes isn’t so easily dismissed. After all, reporters often work in teams on single articles, with one of them taking the lead on the draft. Did the others then . . . not report? And I’ve certainly been in breaking-news situations where a reporter would text, email, or call in their notes to an editor or writer who would put together the piece. It’s generally recognized that writing and reporting are different skills, and what Quinn and Cleveland.com appear to have done is use AI to fully separate them. The conventional wisdom on the “correct” way to use AI is to let it take over the tasks that it can do faster and better than humans, freeing them up to do the things that absolutely require human engagement and judgment. In the case of a reporter, that’s talking to sources, learning new things, and earning their trust. Well, at long last, AI is actually very good at writing. Certainly, much of the text that’s come out of AI systems over the past few years hasn’t done much for its literary reputation (yes, we’re all tired of the rampant em-dashes and the “it’s not Xit’s Y” bits). But if you use the most powerful models with a modest amount of deliberate prompting, they can produce highly competent prose. And if we’re being honest, highly competent prose is all that’s needed for a large amount of reported stories. Many, if not most, news reports are meant to convey basic information about what happened, with little judgment or opinion, and typically written in AP style, which is essentially a formula. It’s not quite code, but it’s a very functional way of writing. The most important thing is conveying the facts, accurately and with context, as quickly as possible. Again, it’s important to understand that the reporter is not removed from the process, but their role changes significantly. Just as Shumer found himself becoming a supervisor to an AI building machine, reporters may become operators of writing bots, ensuring they’re crafting stories properly out of the raw material they’ve been given. In the case of Quinn’s newsroom, reporters have final say over the copy. Bleeding between the lines None of this is to say this approach will result in a perfect future. There are writers who aren’t great at reporting, and there are reporters who aren’t skilled at writing, but there are plenty who are good at both. Will they need to pick a sideeither become a feature or opinion writer, or settle for just doing the reporting part? And what about skill building? Even if this approach is as successful as Quinn says, how will junior staff become better writers without the day-in, day-out act of writing stories? When Woelfel says writing is integral to reporting, I think he means it’s integral to storytelling, which is an act of curation, prioritization, and expressionall with an audience in mind. This is what Ben Affleck meant when he famously drew a distinction between AI as a craftsman and AI as an artist. But how do you become an artist if AI is doing all thecrafting? The irony of Shumer’s piece is that, while he makes a solid case that AI will soon disrupt most knowledge workand even name-checks journalism as one of the areas in the crosshairshe did it with an essay with a distinctly human voice. I honestly don’t know if he used AI to fully or partially write the piece, but I’m certain that if he did, he also was meticulous about every word. I think that’s a hopeful sign that, even if we relegate some of the craft of writing to AI, that we might not lose as much as we might think. Audiences will always demand a human touch, so that touch will need to manifest in some form. It’s true that no one wants to read AI slop. But it might turn out that the most valuable reporting skill in the future will be the ability to turn slop into stories. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/media-copilot.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/fe289316-bc4f-44ef-96bf-148b3d8578c1_1440x1440.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to The Media Copilot\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for The Media Copilot. To learn more visit \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/\u0022\u003Emediacopilot.substack.com\u003C\/a\u003E","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"SIGN UP","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","theme":{"bg":"#f5f5f5","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91453847,"imageMobileId":91453848,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
For decades, a legal degree felt like a golden ticket, a safe career choice because a robot could never take a lawyers job. Today consumers are increasingly turning to new technologies like generative artificial intelligence for answers to their legal questions without the assistance of a lawyer. No wonder: The high cost of legal services places them beyond the reach of most Americans. Some outside the profession see this market failure as an opportunity. Legal technology startups armed with AI agents are securing billion-dollar evaluations, and after recent leaps in AI models and new featuresincluding one from Anthropic that can help automate legal taskssome legal and tech stocks went into shock. The sense that “something big is happening” also left at least some lawyers wondering whether the robots are finally coming for their jobs, and asking if this is the beginning of the end of the legal profession? It doesnt need to be. Lawyers could try to wage what will certainly be a losing campaign against the encroachment of new technologies on areas of American life typically dominated by lawyers. Instead, the American legal profession can learn to run with the machines and not against them, fulfilling their ethical duty to ensure all Americans have access to justice by harnessing these technologies to deliver affordable and accessible legal services at scale. These two powerful phenomenathe emergence of new technologies and the fact that tens of millions of Americans face their legal problems without a lawyerwill certainly encourage Americans to rely on new and widely available tools regardless of whether the information and guidance these consumers receive is accurate. And it often isnt. Indeed, according to one recent report, there are nearly 1,000 documented cases of lawyers and unrepresented litigants referencing fictitious court decisions and other legal authorities in court filings because of AI hallucinations: instances where the AI fabricated the legal sources upon which those litigants relied to their detriment, resulting in fines and other punishments from the courts. The tragic reality driving many Americans to these imperfect alternatives to professional legal help is not that consumers are choosing between a lawyer and a bot; they are all too often facing their legal problem with no lawyer at all. This is especially true in areas where the fees available to lawyers are low, yet the stakes for the consumer high: where a tenant faces eviction, an immigrant is at risk of deportation, a homeowner might lose their home to foreclosure, or a victim of identity theft faces a mountain of debt they did not accumulate themselves. Roughly 93% of low-income and half of middle-income Americans go without adequate legal representation when confronted with legal problems like these. This access-to-justice crisis, as bad as it is, leads to larger and even more troubling concerns. When lawyers are not available to vindicate important interests, that threatens other critical values all Americans should cherish: individual liberty and dignity, civil rights, equal justice, and the rule of law. But this isnt the first time that the legal profession has faced these sorts of challenges. At the turn of the 20th century, industrialization led to reorganization of the bar into larger and larger law firms to respond to the growing and more complex demands of their clients. Simple technologies like the telephone, telegraph, and typewriter made the practice of law more efficient, allowing lawyers to provide more comprehensive services to their corporate clients. Ironically, many of the measures elites in the bar formulated to respond to these societal and technological changes led to the current market failure. Indeed, instead of welcoming more lawyers into the profession to meet the growing need for its services, elites in the bar erected barriers to entry where few existed before (at least if you were white and male). They built high walls and wide moats to prevent dilution of the legal services market, including requiring an expensive legal education and more challenging bar exams before an aspiring lawyer could begin to practice. These requirements had the desired effect: limiting access to the profession and artificially inflating the cost of legal services. What is more, many of these barriers endure and continue to drive up the cost of legal services today. This time is different though. Never before has it looked like technology could truly displace lawyers. Indeed, tools like CitizenshipWorks, an online portal that helps individuals apply for citizenship, and Depositron, which assists tenants in New York seeking a return of their security deposit from their former landlords, are meeting critical needs without the fees a lawyer might otherwise charge for these services. Think of it as the expansion of TurboTax-like products to other areas of the law. There are certainly situations where there is no substitute for a living, breathing lawyer, like when a criminal defendant is facing a felony charge, or when a complex and novel business transaction requires unique legal skills. But when the alternative is no legal representation at all, as is the case with far too many American consumers with far simpler legal needsneeds that can be met through technological innovationsthe profession has an obligation to find ways to address those needs, even when doing so will bring down the price of legal services or displace some traditional legal jobs. In the face of such threats to their position in society, however, lawyers must remember that the point of the legal system is not to serve as a full-employment plan for lawyers; it is to help people solve their legal problems. This market opportunity is one that lawyers can actually seize. Instead of ignoring new technologies or erecting even higher walls to their adoption, the legal profession should embrace and shape these technologies, creating an array of options for individuals, families, and businesses to address their legal problems at lower cost, and at scale. Big Law is already adopting many of these new tools to serve their well-heeled clients; the present cost of building effective systems may mean that the widespread adoption of such technologies at the high-end of the legal services market actually makes the access-to-justice gap worse, not better. Instead of exacerbating legal access inequality, the profession should build bridgesaided by new technologiesthat will span the chasm between those who require legal assistance and those who can afford it, even if the services that solve Americans legal problems in the not-so distant future are not always delivered by lawyers alone. Theres plenty of legal work to go around. Lawyers should be the ones figuring out how to put new technologies to useto serve the legal needs of all Americans in creative, ethical, effective, affordable, and accessible ways. When they do that, they will serve the professions most important values and functions, and advance what should be its highest ideals.
Category:
E-Commerce
Communicating on group chats has quickly become a way of life, but what are the rules?We used to use email, the phone or talk in person. Now we use platforms like iMessage, WhatsApp or Slack to coordinate a night out with friends, a kids’ birthday party, a work project or even to discuss sensitive military information as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did by sharing details of airstrikes in a Signal chat.But while group chats have exploded in popularity because of their informality, that also creates its own challenges: discussions can veer off topic, repetitive or basic questions can irritate group members, and that viral meme you think is funny could also offend.The principles of digital etiquette remain the same as other kinds of etiquette, but they are also “context specific and many of the rules are implicit rather than explicit,” said Rupert Wesson, a director at Debrett’s, the British etiquette guide, who outlined key tips for The Associated Press: Think before messaging Etiquette is always based on the idea of care and consideration for others, Wesson said. So it helps to think about how the recipients might be affected by your message.That means, for example, not wasting other members’ time by asking questions that could be easily answered by doing a Google search, or scrolling up or searching through the previous posts.The Trent Windsurfing Club near Nottingham, England, which communicates with members using both WhatsApp and email, spells out other considerations in a 15-point list on its website.“Don’t get angry if someone doesn’t respond to your messages in a group. No one is obliged to do so. Better send him/her a direct message,” the club says.Also, “Before sending a video, picture, meme or any content, analyze if such material will be in the interest of the majority of the members of the group.”And avoid sending videos or files that are very large, because “nobody likes to saturate the memory of their smartphone or waste their data/internet plan on nonsense,” its guidance says. The club did not respond to a request for comment. Remember the aim of the chat Always consider the chat group’s purpose. For those created with a specific and practical function in mind, just stick to the task and don’t post any more than you need to, Wesson said.On the other hand, “some groups are there for frivolity and here, more is more,” he added.It should be obvious, but don’t post personal stuff in a company or business-related chat, and refrain from posting work-related material in a group with friends or family.It doesn’t hurt to lurk first before weighing in, partly because on some chat platforms new members can’t see what was posted before they joined.“It is always best to err on the side of caution until you are very clear on the purpose and culture of the group,” Wesson said. Consider the size of the group Do you need to respond to every message? There’s often someone who feels the need to type out a reply to every post, even if it’s just to say “thanks.” But doing so in a big group might be somewhat akin to an email reply-all storm.Wesson advises considering how many people are in the chat.“If there are three of you in the group, a response, if only an emoji, is almost expected,” Wesson said. “In group of 50 or more it is practically a criminal offense.” Keep it clean and decent, especially at work This is an especially important point when it comes to work communications, with many white collar workers now using chat platforms like Slack and Microsoft Teams rather than email to communicate.These platforms feel less formal than email but don’t forget to follow the same guidelines as you do with other company communications.“Assume anything messaged can be forwarded and be especially cautious of work chats (however informal they appear),” Wesson said. “As countless people have discovered at employment tribunals, any diversion into anything indecorous can be career limiting.” Less can be more in chats Chat messages should be short and sweet.One reason is that your words could come across differently depending on the person reading the message, so stick to using short sentences to avoid being misinterpreted.If it’s about work, and you want to discuss something in more length and detail, consider an in-person meeting, a phone call, or email instead.“No one wants to read a 7-inch-long unformatted message when an organized attachment would have worked better,” the experts at The Emily Post Institute the American equivalent of Debrett’s advised in a blog post on business communications. Message clarity and style matter It’s not a college essay, so the rules around grammar, punctuation or even emoji don’t need to be too strict.“You should not feel too constricted and nor should you judge others for playing fast and loose with the King’s English,” Wesson said. “Just let brevity and clarity be your guide.”Speaking of emoji, they’re fun and can convey your meaning as well as the most thoughtful turn of phrase, Wesson said. But don’t abuse them because they can be a “minefield.”There’s a world of difference between, for example, the crying emoji and the crying with laughter emoji, he said. It’s best to play it safe and avoid emoji when, for example, sending condolences, Wesson said. How to properly leave a chat group If you’re getting annoyed by the number of message notifications from a big chat group, or you feel uncomfortable because of some of the comments, just put it on mute. And don’t be afraid to leave the group if you don’t need to be in it.Before leaving, consider letting the chat administrator know.“The group administrator has a responsibility to ensure the chat serves its purpose and that things don’t get too out of hand,” Wesson says.What should admins do if certain people are causing problems?“If things are going awry, deleting a member is an option but perhaps a little drastic. A quiet DM or a brief muting should always be considered first,” Wesson says. If you do leave the chat, should you say farewell? Again, it depends on the context. If it’s for a one-off event with a lot of people you don’t know, there’s probably no need.But if, say, you’re part of a remote work project, it would be a good idea to notify everyone.“When leaving make it clear that you are removing yourself immediately so the chat does not fill up with people wishing you farewell,” Wesson said. Is there a tech topic that you think needs explaining? Write to us at onetechtip@ap.org with your suggestions for future editions of One Tech Tip. Kelvin Chan, AP Business Writer
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||