Yes. In a few ways it’s considerably worse. Your website is referencing major world events, including war and freedom of press, by leveraging uninformed comments from the web (many of them themselves written by AI). That would be a problem even if your content weren’t auto-generated (random comments don’t make good or accurate journalism) but it’s worse when it’s churned at a high rate and introduces its own false interpretations.
Thanks for your input. This website should neither compete with nor replace regular journalism. What I try to achieve here is to be able to break free from social media silos where usually people are in kind of bubble. No one can read this many comments and people usually tend to read only comments / conversations where they align with their believes. Hence, I try to highlight different view points along with contrasting opinions (across several different social media platforms) to get an overview--not necessarily fact-based. These stories aren't supposed to push any agenda down anyone's throat.
Since this project just went live I'm still figuring out how to communicate that.
> This website should neither compete with nor replace regular journalism.
That’s good in theory, but people will use it like that anyway. We’re living in an era of rampant misinformation. Provable truths we’ve know for thousands of years are being called into question (the shape of the Earth). Even people who should know to do their own research (see recent case of lawyers using ChatGPT) are taking AI output as unquestionable truth. Your website won’t eliminate bias, it will only give people more sources to cherry pick.
> Hence, I try to highlight different view points along with contrasting opinions
Which exacerbates the issue. If we can prove the Earth is a sphere and 99% of people understand that, making it seem like the “contrasting opinion” is equally valid and deserves the same weighted consideration makes the problem worse, not better. John Oliver illustrated the problem in 2014, using climate change as the example.
Yes. In a few ways it’s considerably worse. Your website is referencing major world events, including war and freedom of press, by leveraging uninformed comments from the web (many of them themselves written by AI). That would be a problem even if your content weren’t auto-generated (random comments don’t make good or accurate journalism) but it’s worse when it’s churned at a high rate and introduces its own false interpretations.