This has the feeling of smugly declaring victory too early. The objection to AI in journalism has to be something other than that the technology is janky. Because it will improve. The people selling this AI product to news stations are counting on that. Assume that it will one day do a human presenter's job as well as they do, at a fraction of the cost. The argument against this use of AI technology needs to be able to survive after that happens, so the argument has to be based on something that won't change any time soon, like ethics, or morality, or even epistemology. Something like that. I'm telling you, don't just rely on AI being this bad forever, or you'll lose the argument in the long run.

It doesn't help that the value of the news has been so thoroughly diminished by the news industry itself already. The trend lines of AI performance going up, and trust in journalism going down, are going to cross sooner than you think, and that's the point at which James and Rose will be back to stay.