I’m still good with Ars (though, I have used the term “Arse Technica” in the past — I mean, it’s right there), but I’ve always respected their journalism.
IMO, using AI in the way they’re talking about is using Wikipedia. Whenever I look something up on DDG and it uses Duck.ai to summarise search results (same thing Google gets shit on for doing!), I check their sources. Sometimes they’re right, sometimes they’re not. I approach Wikipedia in the same way. It’s a good collection of knowledge, but Wikipedia is subject to vandalism, so I check behind them. Wikipedia is more reliable than the AIs, but sometimes it gets it wrong, too.
You have to remember and realise, Ars Technica is a tech site. In fact, the name is Latin for “the art of technology” (I think — something like that). If they don’t embrace AI to some extent, how can they reasonably call themselves a tech site? They have to embrace it. They write about it, they cover it, they use it — but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and they still fall on the side of responsible AI use. If you draw the line at any AI use, you’re outside their target audience. You might also be outside the target audience of a comm called “technology.” There are comms for retro tech that would be glad to have you. That is not to say that AI is the only way forward. It’s just where technology is now. I’m with those hoping it’s a fad that blows over and a bubble that bursts. As a technologist, there are plenty of things about AI that I don’t like, but I don’t avoid it entirely.
In general, search result summary is killing a whole ecosystem and making people doing research more complicit, so yes DDG should not get a free pass just because they’re Not Google
You have to remember and realise, Ars Technica is a tech site. In fact, the name is Latin for “the art of technology” (I think — something like that). If they don’t embrace AI to some extent, how can they reasonably call themselves a tech site? They have to embrace it.
Let’s say there’s a magazine on constructing buildings. Do they have to embrace using asbestos themselves to report on it?
I’m still good with Ars (though, I have used the term “Arse Technica” in the past — I mean, it’s right there), but I’ve always respected their journalism.
IMO, using AI in the way they’re talking about is using Wikipedia. Whenever I look something up on DDG and it uses Duck.ai to summarise search results (same thing Google gets shit on for doing!), I check their sources. Sometimes they’re right, sometimes they’re not. I approach Wikipedia in the same way. It’s a good collection of knowledge, but Wikipedia is subject to vandalism, so I check behind them. Wikipedia is more reliable than the AIs, but sometimes it gets it wrong, too.
You have to remember and realise, Ars Technica is a tech site. In fact, the name is Latin for “the art of technology” (I think — something like that). If they don’t embrace AI to some extent, how can they reasonably call themselves a tech site? They have to embrace it. They write about it, they cover it, they use it — but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and they still fall on the side of responsible AI use. If you draw the line at any AI use, you’re outside their target audience. You might also be outside the target audience of a comm called “technology.” There are comms for retro tech that would be glad to have you. That is not to say that AI is the only way forward. It’s just where technology is now. I’m with those hoping it’s a fad that blows over and a bubble that bursts. As a technologist, there are plenty of things about AI that I don’t like, but I don’t avoid it entirely.
In general, search result summary is killing a whole ecosystem and making people doing research more complicit, so yes DDG should not get a free pass just because they’re Not Google
Let’s say there’s a magazine on constructing buildings. Do they have to embrace using asbestos themselves to report on it?
Asbestos Is inevitable