In the United States, various movements surrounding generative AI have become active, and whether or not to use AI to create newspaper articles is also a subject of debate.
The New York Times has changed its terms of service, prohibiting AI from learning articles and photos. The company has previously prohibited the use of articles for AI learning, but has made it clearer.
The Associated Press also announced a policy not to use AI to create articles. The reason for this is that AI cannot replace journalists.
In addition, when introducing works such as images generated by AI, we have set out rules such as clearly stating that fact and not entering confidential information into AI.
It has long been pointed out that AI-based learning could violate the copyrights of articles, etc., and media companies have taken a cautious stance toward using AI. On the other hand, in order to improve the accuracy of AI, it is necessary to learn articles from each media. The battle between media companies and IT companies is likely to continue for some time.
Google has developed an AI service that can create news articles, and is marketing it to the media.
It’s not uncommon for media companies to try to distance themselves from AI. In this corner, we are continuing trial and error with the aim of having AI write articles, but frankly, the current AI does not seem to demonstrate excellence as a substitute reporter. The main business of the media, which is to collect information and write articles and edit videos, is a series of unforeseen situations, and there is surprisingly little fixed routine work. This seems like an unsuitable field for AI, which excels at repetitive work based on digital-specific numerical values. In other words, there seems to be limited interest in using AI for media companies, and no incentive to reach out.
So I asked AI.
Is AI suitable for journalists?

AI’s view: AI is good for some tasks for journalists, but whether it can completely replace them is still up for debate. AI is useful as a tool to assist in some of the work of journalists, especially in terms of data analysis and efficient article generation. However, there are elements that cannot be fully covered, such as human insight, emotional understanding, and ethical judgment. In the future, AI and human reporters may work together to deliver higher-quality news reporting.

My view: AI is certainly suitable for editing assistance such as proofreading sentences and data analysis. It can also be used for short bulletins such as “Tomorrow’s weather” and “An earthquake will occur in A Prefecture.” However, in reality, proofreading and breaking news can be done without using AI. Now that we have good software, how far do we need to use AI?
I’ve been editing the Denkei Shimbun by myself for more than 10 years now, and from that experience, the development of broadband and the evolution of software specialized for editing work are far more useful than the use of AI. . Since I am working alone, I can get a bird’s-eye view of the entire paper, which makes it easier to optimize the whole and avoids duplication of articles. I feel that if AI is introduced halfway, there will be duplication of articles and discrepancies in the tone of the argument, and on the contrary, it will become more troublesome.
At this point in time, rather than trying to apply AI to media operations, it seems that focusing on applying AI to the company’s common operations will produce much greater results.
(Kei Kitajima)