I don't think that's true. The 'this battle is already over' attitude is the most defeatist strategy possible. It's effectively complying in advance, rolling over before you've attempted to create the best possible outcome.

With that attitude we would not have voting, human rights (for what they're worth these days), unions, a prohibition on slavery and tons of other things we take for granted every day.

I'm sure AI has its place but to see it assume the guise of human output without any kind of differentiating factor has so many downsides that it is worth trying to curb the excesses. And news articles in particular should be free from hallucinations because they in turn will cause others to pass those on. Obviously with the quality of some publications you could argue that that is an improvement but it wasn't always so and a free and capable press is a precious thing.

> With that attitude we would not have voting, human rights (for what they're worth these days), unions, a prohibition on slavery and tons of other things we take for granted every day.

None of these things were rolling back a technology. History shows that technology is a ratchet, the only way to get rid of a technology is social collapse or surplanting the technology with something even more useful or at the very least approximately as useful but safer.

Once a technology has proliferated, it's a fiat accompli. You can regulate the technology but turning the clock back isn't going to happen.

Well they aren't free from hallucinations with human authors. Not to long ago there was an outbreak of articles in the "reputable" mainstream press claiming that there was a foiled terrorist plot against the UN which was actually (and obviously) a garden variety SMS fraud operation. Why should I care if it's AI lying to me next time rather than the constant deluge of humans lying to me?