Current Affairs says it's banning AI
Current Affairs has enshrined tough restrictions on publishing using generative AI into its union contract. It's bet is that it will publish better journalism that way.
Link: Why We’re Banning AI, by Nathan J. Robinson in Current Affairs
The headline here is a bit of a misnomer. Current Affairs stresses that it’s not against technical innovation, but:
“[…] we need, first, to ensure that technologies are a tool used by workers to help them, rather than a tool used to replace workers. And, second, we need to make sure that readers aren’t being fed things that look like people’s genuine thoughts and creative expression but are in fact the product of disembodied mathematical formulas.”
The result is something that seems entirely reasonable to me: journalists are free to use AI in the course of their work, but may not write or illustrate their pieces with it. This ensures that they remain in control of the work published under their bylines, while allowing them to take advantage of automation when it can serve their process.
The side effects entirely benefit Current Affairs. Readers can trust that the work they read is produced by real people who have applied editorial judgment; the publication is also structurally incapable of publishing articles at a high volume or speed, forcing them to focus on quality rather than impressions. Journalists also know that their jobs are safer than they might be in an organization that doesn’t see a problem downsizing its newsroom in favor of predictive models.
The piece runs down the effects generative AI have had on creative industries, and touches on the fallacy of using Milton Friedman economics in mission-driven spaces. But the most important thing the piece has to say is: we will produce better journalism this way. I tend to agree. And what’s exciting is that it’s baked into their contract with their workforce — there’s no way to back out.