The tsunami is already here. The latest version of the ChatGPT artificial intelligence (AI) was released last November and amazed the world: it is original, creative, can code, is funny and imitates a person’s way of expressing themselves. All this in a way that is difficult to distinguish from that of a human. Google has already activated an internal code red for fear that the big wave will wipe it off the map, and Microsoft has announced that it will invest 10,000 million dollars in this technology. Its disruptive potential is such, experts say, that practically no industry is safe. Among them, that of the media.
In the United States, the CNET technology portal already publishes articles that combine the signature of an AI with that of a human journalist who reviews the text before its publication. Viral news giant Buzzfeed’s share value has tripled this week after announcing it will generate content with AI.
Mass media from all over the world have published in recent weeks texts written by ChatGPT to show its readers what it is capable of. La Vanguardia chose to interview her, and the machine’s response about the future of journalism was apparently reassuring: “AI technology and robots are not intended to replace journalists. (…) They are designed to help them do their job more efficiently and effectively.”
Advances in artificial intelligence will increase and journalists must learn to surf the big wave in the best possible way, integrate them into our profession. The researcher in this field Janet Haven assures in her analysis ChatGPT and the future of truth that we will soon see “fascinating” uses of AI that “will benefit society”, but also warns that there will be those who use it to intoxicate. “In an environment where trust in information is extremely low and misinformation is rampant, ChatGPT’s human-imitation hack drops gasoline on a burning dumpster.”
AI, the Washington Post writer Megan McArdle abounds, has proven to be capable of endowing authentic lies with veracity. This, he explains, will make it necessary to integrate the use of these tools into journalistic codes of ethics (to begin with, always warning the reader if they have been used in the preparation of a piece of news) and to adapt and reinforce the internal controls that have provided the press of his “reputation for telling the truth”.
McArdle concludes that “if truth from fiction proves impossible, readers, paradoxically, may be more willing to pay for human judgment they can trust.”
