Henry Luce (the creator and original publisher of SI) is turning in his grave again, not having completely recovered from the butchery job that has been done to his other creations, "Time", "Life" and "Fortune".
I haven't checked it out for a while, but hasn't Time sort of rallied a bit journalistically since being purchased by Marc Benioff? Probably still a shell of its former Luce self, though.
Yes, human everything. Robot hands will never be human hands. There's a reason God gave us hands to create--and why He emphasizes throughout the Bible that we use our hands. It's why my business continues to at least sustain me during these challenging times.
That, and the free ride for AI "creators," to really stretch the definition of the word, is just about over. AI companies can't keep draining the lakes and reservoirs for free. They've started metering their AI output for software developers and other users. Writers won't be far behind. Without the free ride, most of these sham writers will disappear.
AI is symptom of a much bigger problem, Ted. Take a more global view. Are these media going away because they use AI? Or are they resorting to AI because they can no longer afford to pay real people for real writing/reporting? The Internet and social media blew up the advertising support model traditional journalism relied on for centuries. Craigslist on its own sucked up the most lucrative portion of advertising: classified ads. I want to support dozens of local, regional, and national media and indie writers/reporters but my finances are not endless. What we need desperately is a new revenue model for journalism beyond a billionaire buyer. Any ideas, Ted? Or do you stick to carping about using AI? I also hate it, but I know that in the case of media, there is true financial desperation behind it. How do we change that but leave media independent?
This is cultural insanity. Sir Roger Penrose, Nobel prize for work on black holes, believes AI is a misnomer as it is not conscious so has no place being labelled ‘intelligence’. To put AI into anything requiring creativity implies a complete misunderstanding of what it is and what it can do and what it cannot. I shall say, well write, again, AI can only operate on the known. It cannot create. It cannot imagine, in any sphere so no e=mc2, Van Gogh, Shakespeare, Duke Ellington, no Quantum Mechanics…….etc.
Not only is there a dearth of writers due to an obliteration of pubs for which to write, readers are dwindling because we have to pay to read now - thanks to this very subscription model. An informed society has access to information, and in this era you have to pay to be informed or misinformed as the case may be. Talk about class warfare. I'm all for taxpayer-sponsored objective public news and entertainment outlets if the actual government keeps its snout out of the trough of content.
I will gladly pay to read someone's book or someone's podcast to expand upon knowledge, but we all need basic news and information about the world in which we live to function and contribute to the conversation.
We always paid to be informed, we always had to buy that newspaper. The difference is that now you have to buy every issue of that newspaper - so access does become more restricted.
I was a bookish, reflective kid, a dreamer, and it concerned my grandparents enough that they bought me a subscription first to Boy’s Life (I can’t imagine that title flying today), and then to Sports Illustrated, presumably hoping to activate my testosterone.
I didn’t care about sports, but I loved to read, and every one of those magazines had my name on the postage label, so I read the articles and became knowledgeable about many things I would never have otherwise encountered.
I also loved looking at the pictures, both the terrific photos and the paintings and drawings by the top illustrators of the day, like Bernie Fuchs, Bart Forbes, Bob Peak, and Mark English. Where most of the glossy magazines had switched to all-photograph formats, SI still employed visual artists, and many of the covers were paintings rather than photos. I’m sure that a lot of people who might never look at visual art were in this way influenced to see the world a little differently.
The quality of the writing was very high as well, and the overall impression of the publication was that Sports fit into Culture as a whole, and could be discussed from that perspective rather than catering only to sports fans who were obsessed with stats, tribal rivalry and hero-worship.
I’m glad and grateful for that subscription, and sorry that the publication has failed.
The good news in this situation is the rejection of it by readers - we don't want this slop, and your business will suffer if you try to pull a fast one. This is a happy story!
It's interesting that you rail against AI being used to write creatively, yet you take as absolute truth that AI detectors (which are AI driven) can reliably tell the difference. They are prone to false positives and should all be scrapped. I've tested a lot of them and it's kind of a joke. Another way you can destroy a reputation is to claim that it was written by AI.
Sure you did. You touted Pangram's finding that 4 Commonwealth prize stories were written by AI. "Embarrassing news" which means you took it on faith that these stories were indeed generated by AI.
This is an easy concept to understand. It's been known for thousands of year's as the "Caesar's wife" standard. Wise people avoid anything that might hint of impropriety. If you still don't comprehend, read this: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_wife_must_be_above_suspicion
If the hint of impropriety is generated by an AI bot perhaps there is no hint of impropriety. I think this falls under the "When did you stop beating your wife" standard. An easy concept to understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
You now have stated your opinion. But mine hasn't changed. AI detection tools provide indicators, but are not absolute truth. You can spin as much as you want, but my position is what it is. Continuing this dialogue with you is pointless—I've realized that by now. So I'll stop bothering. But I have made my position clear to any sensible reader who cares about such things.
AI "writing" not only bad writing and deception. It is an attack on the uniqueness of human beings, made in God's image and likeness. It defaces and desecrates God's creation through deception.
Thanks for exposing this, Ted. We must continue to fight for real, good human writing and fight against the onslaught of AI slop. As a Professor, I am especially concerned about how AI undermines education and knowledge.
Not unlike the promoters who buy "zombie" trademarks and use them on products totally unrelated to their origins, resulting in Studebaker record players and Bell & Howell bug zappers.
And AI still can't even properly count Starbucks inventory.
Arguably, the problem isn't even AI or those pushing it, but the fools who actually buy into these ridiculous narratives. These are usually folks who have a pathetic or lowly opinion of human beings in general, such that they believe much of humanity is just superfluous.
That anti-human idea and the Gnostic elite which has always pushed these notions even before AI are the real people that need to be pushed back against.
Norbert Wiener, the father of Cybernetics, also thought the human brain was largely just a biocomputer. Everything about both living beings and machines could be reduced to a system of feedback loops, he believed. This became the science of Cybernetics, which continues to be one of the key concepts governing how the elites organize and manage society from the top down. The AI cult is only the latest outgrowth of this same movement, which seeks to take the ideas to the next step.
At the heart of all this is a rejection of the idea of human creativity as an actual principle in the universe, or that every individual is made in the image of God and therefore has an intrinsic potential, which can be awakened and developed, if only they are given the chance and provided with the right kind of education and resources.
The Gnostic elite and AI cultists have an atavistic hatred for this kind idea, a hatred beyond what most people can imagine.
That "new kind of stupid" has been going on for a long time. Back in 2008 there was an article written "Is Google Making Us Stupid"? The author actually promoted simplification of educational content. I had an interesting discussion with him, explaining why that was the wrong strategy. But still, the trend has been toward more and more simplification in many forms of content across the Internet. And look at us today (well, not you, of course, but the general public). Literacy levels have dropped. In the U.S. "Literacy score decline 12-point drop from 2017 to 2023 (271 to 258) NCES PIAAC 2023" And today: Fourth-grade reading proficiency: 34% of students lack basic reading level NCES 2025.
Henry Luce (the creator and original publisher of SI) is turning in his grave again, not having completely recovered from the butchery job that has been done to his other creations, "Time", "Life" and "Fortune".
I haven't checked it out for a while, but hasn't Time sort of rallied a bit journalistically since being purchased by Marc Benioff? Probably still a shell of its former Luce self, though.
It's a frustrating situation. But I believe the real revolution in the creative arts will be the reemergence of human voices.
Yes, human everything. Robot hands will never be human hands. There's a reason God gave us hands to create--and why He emphasizes throughout the Bible that we use our hands. It's why my business continues to at least sustain me during these challenging times.
That, and the free ride for AI "creators," to really stretch the definition of the word, is just about over. AI companies can't keep draining the lakes and reservoirs for free. They've started metering their AI output for software developers and other users. Writers won't be far behind. Without the free ride, most of these sham writers will disappear.
AI is symptom of a much bigger problem, Ted. Take a more global view. Are these media going away because they use AI? Or are they resorting to AI because they can no longer afford to pay real people for real writing/reporting? The Internet and social media blew up the advertising support model traditional journalism relied on for centuries. Craigslist on its own sucked up the most lucrative portion of advertising: classified ads. I want to support dozens of local, regional, and national media and indie writers/reporters but my finances are not endless. What we need desperately is a new revenue model for journalism beyond a billionaire buyer. Any ideas, Ted? Or do you stick to carping about using AI? I also hate it, but I know that in the case of media, there is true financial desperation behind it. How do we change that but leave media independent?
This is cultural insanity. Sir Roger Penrose, Nobel prize for work on black holes, believes AI is a misnomer as it is not conscious so has no place being labelled ‘intelligence’. To put AI into anything requiring creativity implies a complete misunderstanding of what it is and what it can do and what it cannot. I shall say, well write, again, AI can only operate on the known. It cannot create. It cannot imagine, in any sphere so no e=mc2, Van Gogh, Shakespeare, Duke Ellington, no Quantum Mechanics…….etc.
This is exactly correct. AI has no consciousness and no agency. It writes nothing and knows nothing.
The ultimate irony is using AI to track and identify AI-created content, and then to call that content out.
Not only is there a dearth of writers due to an obliteration of pubs for which to write, readers are dwindling because we have to pay to read now - thanks to this very subscription model. An informed society has access to information, and in this era you have to pay to be informed or misinformed as the case may be. Talk about class warfare. I'm all for taxpayer-sponsored objective public news and entertainment outlets if the actual government keeps its snout out of the trough of content.
I will gladly pay to read someone's book or someone's podcast to expand upon knowledge, but we all need basic news and information about the world in which we live to function and contribute to the conversation.
We always paid to be informed, we always had to buy that newspaper. The difference is that now you have to buy every issue of that newspaper - so access does become more restricted.
I was a bookish, reflective kid, a dreamer, and it concerned my grandparents enough that they bought me a subscription first to Boy’s Life (I can’t imagine that title flying today), and then to Sports Illustrated, presumably hoping to activate my testosterone.
I didn’t care about sports, but I loved to read, and every one of those magazines had my name on the postage label, so I read the articles and became knowledgeable about many things I would never have otherwise encountered.
I also loved looking at the pictures, both the terrific photos and the paintings and drawings by the top illustrators of the day, like Bernie Fuchs, Bart Forbes, Bob Peak, and Mark English. Where most of the glossy magazines had switched to all-photograph formats, SI still employed visual artists, and many of the covers were paintings rather than photos. I’m sure that a lot of people who might never look at visual art were in this way influenced to see the world a little differently.
The quality of the writing was very high as well, and the overall impression of the publication was that Sports fit into Culture as a whole, and could be discussed from that perspective rather than catering only to sports fans who were obsessed with stats, tribal rivalry and hero-worship.
I’m glad and grateful for that subscription, and sorry that the publication has failed.
The good news in this situation is the rejection of it by readers - we don't want this slop, and your business will suffer if you try to pull a fast one. This is a happy story!
the lemonade you make from AI lemons is, admittedly, good.
It's interesting that you rail against AI being used to write creatively, yet you take as absolute truth that AI detectors (which are AI driven) can reliably tell the difference. They are prone to false positives and should all be scrapped. I've tested a lot of them and it's kind of a joke. Another way you can destroy a reputation is to claim that it was written by AI.
I never said that AI detectors deliver absolute truth. By all means, criticize my views, but don't attribute views to me that I don't hold.
My point is simply that AI detection tools can impact a reputation. That should be obvious to everybody now, no matter where they stand on AI.
Sure you did. You touted Pangram's finding that 4 Commonwealth prize stories were written by AI. "Embarrassing news" which means you took it on faith that these stories were indeed generated by AI.
This is an easy concept to understand. It's been known for thousands of year's as the "Caesar's wife" standard. Wise people avoid anything that might hint of impropriety. If you still don't comprehend, read this: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_wife_must_be_above_suspicion
If the hint of impropriety is generated by an AI bot perhaps there is no hint of impropriety. I think this falls under the "When did you stop beating your wife" standard. An easy concept to understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
You now have stated your opinion. But mine hasn't changed. AI detection tools provide indicators, but are not absolute truth. You can spin as much as you want, but my position is what it is. Continuing this dialogue with you is pointless—I've realized that by now. So I'll stop bothering. But I have made my position clear to any sensible reader who cares about such things.
Thank you for this eye-opener Ted.
Quora is now using AI slop. So are the Republican groups dumping fake/loaded "questions" into it.
AI "writing" not only bad writing and deception. It is an attack on the uniqueness of human beings, made in God's image and likeness. It defaces and desecrates God's creation through deception.
Thanks for exposing this, Ted. We must continue to fight for real, good human writing and fight against the onslaught of AI slop. As a Professor, I am especially concerned about how AI undermines education and knowledge.
Not unlike the promoters who buy "zombie" trademarks and use them on products totally unrelated to their origins, resulting in Studebaker record players and Bell & Howell bug zappers.
And AI still can't even properly count Starbucks inventory.
Arguably, the problem isn't even AI or those pushing it, but the fools who actually buy into these ridiculous narratives. These are usually folks who have a pathetic or lowly opinion of human beings in general, such that they believe much of humanity is just superfluous.
That anti-human idea and the Gnostic elite which has always pushed these notions even before AI are the real people that need to be pushed back against.
Norbert Wiener, the father of Cybernetics, also thought the human brain was largely just a biocomputer. Everything about both living beings and machines could be reduced to a system of feedback loops, he believed. This became the science of Cybernetics, which continues to be one of the key concepts governing how the elites organize and manage society from the top down. The AI cult is only the latest outgrowth of this same movement, which seeks to take the ideas to the next step.
At the heart of all this is a rejection of the idea of human creativity as an actual principle in the universe, or that every individual is made in the image of God and therefore has an intrinsic potential, which can be awakened and developed, if only they are given the chance and provided with the right kind of education and resources.
The Gnostic elite and AI cultists have an atavistic hatred for this kind idea, a hatred beyond what most people can imagine.
That "new kind of stupid" has been going on for a long time. Back in 2008 there was an article written "Is Google Making Us Stupid"? The author actually promoted simplification of educational content. I had an interesting discussion with him, explaining why that was the wrong strategy. But still, the trend has been toward more and more simplification in many forms of content across the Internet. And look at us today (well, not you, of course, but the general public). Literacy levels have dropped. In the U.S. "Literacy score decline 12-point drop from 2017 to 2023 (271 to 258) NCES PIAAC 2023" And today: Fourth-grade reading proficiency: 34% of students lack basic reading level NCES 2025.