Exploring the Use of AI in Journalism: The Controversy Surrounding Cosmos Magazine
Introduction:
Cosmos, Australia’s official science magazine, has recently embarked on an innovative project that utilizes artificial intelligence (AI) to generate science-based articles. The project, funded by the Walkley Foundation Meta News Fund, aims to investigate the potential opportunities and risks associated with AI-written stories. However, the use of funding intended for journalism to aid AI development has raised ethical questions and sparked controversy in the publishing and journalism industries.
The Confusion Over Funding Approval:
One of the main concerns surrounding this project is the ambiguity surrounding the approval of funding. Last month, Cosmos published six AI-generated stories using funds allocated for caretaking to the Walkley Foundation. The former editors of Cosmos, Ian Connellan and Gail MacCallum, expressed their unawareness of the publisher’s application for AI funding. They stated that they would have opposed the idea of employing AI as a background writer-creator. The confusion over the decision to approve funding for AI has raised questions about the transparency of the process.
Growing Concerns About AI Replacing Reporters:
The use of AI in journalism has been a growing issue in Australia. In a recent incident, Nine Entertainment Co. staff went on strike, citing concerns about the lack of protections against AI misuse. This highlights the fear among journalists and media professionals that AI could potentially replace human reporters, leading to job losses and compromised journalistic integrity. The controversy surrounding Cosmos’s AI program adds to these concerns and further fuels the debate about the role of AI in journalism.
The Walkley Foundation’s Response:
The Walkley Foundation, which oversees the allocation of funds for Cosmos’s AI program, responded to the concerns raised about the use of funding. In an online statement, the foundation clarified that it did not directly fund Cosmos for the AI program. CEO Shona Martyn emphasized that the foundation had an “arms-length” administrative arrangement with Meta’s funding and played no part in its allocation or judging. Martyn also assured that the foundation adheres to strict legal and ethical standards and takes appropriate action if grant recipients breach their contractual responsibilities.
Addressing Journalists’ Concerns:
The Walkley Foundation acknowledged the concerns expressed by journalists regarding the use of their work by AI. Given that Cosmos’s program relies on previously written content by employees and freelancers, the foundation emphasized the need for grant recipients to honor and pay reporters and copyright holders. However, the foundation did not provide specifics on how this would be quantified if stories were used as a database for AI. This raises questions about the practical implementation of compensating journalists for their work in the context of AI-generated articles.
CSIRO Publishing’s Perspective:
CSIRO Publishing, the editorially independent publishing arm that now oversees Cosmos, responded to the controversy surrounding the AI project. A spokesperson from CSIRO Publishing stated that despite the use of AI, Cosmos remains a trusted source of scientific information. They highlighted that the generated article content undergoes fact-checking using Cosmos’s previous content database, and the AI model is programmed to check the correctness of its output. Additionally, all articles are reviewed by trained science communicators and the Cosmos publishing team before being published.
Ongoing Review and Adaptation:
CSIRO Publishing clarified that the AI project is experimental and scheduled to run from March 2024 to February 2025. As the project progresses, CSIRO Publishing will continually review the learnings and methodologies involved. This includes testing changes in programming the AI tool, determining its usage, and deciding whether further development or usage of the tool is warranted beyond the project’s completion. This commitment to ongoing review and adaptation demonstrates a willingness to address concerns and make improvements based on the project’s outcomes.
Conclusion:
The use of AI in journalism, as demonstrated by Cosmos’s AI project, continues to be a subject of controversy and debate. The ethical questions surrounding the allocation of funding and the potential replacement of human reporters with AI-generated content raise valid concerns about the future of journalism. However, the responses from the Walkley Foundation and CSIRO Publishing indicate a commitment to transparency, ethical standards, and continuous improvement. The outcomes of this experimental project will provide valuable insights into the opportunities and risks associated with AI in journalism, shaping the future of the industry.
