how do people imagine this working? I saw the chatgpt is pushing me to ask about the world cup, but chatgpt is the last place i'd go. I'd be getting 20 paragraphs based on two team names and a score and half remembered drivel, I can get that at any pub in any country. There is no way that it would bring anything I wouldn't get from looking at the match stats myself.

Similar for other news sources, it seems like a kind of reversal of how its meant to work. I go to chatgpt to ask for stuff, I go to news to learn about things I don't know. I can't ask for things I don't know

▲

lupire 4 hours ago | parent [-]

AI is the most accessible way to do a deep dive to investigate a story. AI systems provide a range of references to related work, both alternative current sources and historical context sources.

But the vast majority of news readers only want headlines and bias confirmation.

AI chat provides a natural way to follow a thread of interest via follow up questions.

▲

JohnFen 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I simply don't trust such systems to be accurate, reliable, or complete enough to use for that sort of task.

▲

staticman2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How is it the most accessible way when stories are paywalled?

What good is a "range of references" if the higher quality references are not accessible to the AI?

You also claim readers want "want headlines and bias confirmation" but AI is very well known to engage in sycophancy.

▲

watwut 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

AI will spew complete bullshit the moment it does not have data. It is about the worst place to go to investigate a new story I don't know much about.

	▲	3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]