This is an extreme example, of course. But it's from a report that NewsGuard published earlier today, exposing 49 sites.
They were publishing inaccurate and misleading news content seemingly created with little human oversight. Posting at a crazy cadence, up to hundreds of articles a day.
What's the point? Who's going to read this? Who's going to click on this?
I'm a subscriber to #Newsguard. I also read that article. These fake sites are throwaways. They likely run on their own and are workshopping towards improvement. It won't be long before it will be near impossible for even the most discriminating reader to tell the difference.
People will read it if they are prompted to, say in a Facebook or Instagram feed.
Within that article this AI pioneer, who just quit Google, is urgently worried about fake content. Longer term he fears for the future of humanity itself.
@esmichelson thanks for such thoughtful responses!
I wonder if those sites are throwaways... it's hard to say without hearing from the people who run them. I assume it's more a passive income stream than anything.
I need to read that AI story, saved it for later.
For the YouScan link - haven't heard of this before, will take a look. Why are you disinclined to use their AI tool?
Dear @mariyadelano
The NewsGuard article agrees with you, clickbait sites.
I view them in aggregate and more strategically. Those wishing to influence keystone populations will study these sites and workshop their own influence operations. That's why disclosure must be law.
I'm friendly with YouScan. They are very excited about this. God bless them! The AI training set is very limited, it's not copyright cleared, and I would check it anyway.
Add comment