Though I didn’t fully appreciate it at the time, one of the best day jobs I ever had was as a receptionist. Not because I have a great love of patching phone calls through, but because I basically got to sit up front by myself and read all day. What a luxury! Then I was an idiot and accepted a promotion, sigh… When it came to the very personal question of selecting which books to read, obviously I followed word of mouth from friends and family, plus building a network of favorite authors and seeking out their work. I also picked up from my mother checking out recommendations from Vanity Fair, People Mag, and perusing the recent releases section of the library. So my head and heart go out to the readers of major newspapers last weekend who sought out a summer reading list. Why? Because the list turned out to be an AI-generated collection of books that, to quote the Chicago Sun-Times’s apology, “do not exist.” Read the human-penned apology for yourself:
On Sunday, May 18, the print and e-paper editions of the Chicago Sun-Times included a special section titled the Heat Index: Your Guide to the Best of Summer, featuring a summer reading list, that our circulation department licensed from King Features, a unit of Hearst, one of our national content partners. The special section was syndicated to the Chicago Sun-Times and other newspapers.
To our great disappointment, that list was created through the use of an AI tool and recommended books that do not exist. We are actively investigating the accuracy of other content in the special section. We will provide more information on that investigation when we have more details.
The Chicago Sun-Times has committed its strong journalism resources to local coverage in the Chicago region. Our journalists are deeply focused on telling the stories of this city and helping connect Chicagoans with one another. We also recognize that many of our print readers turn to us for national and broader coverage beyond our primary focus on the Chicago region. We’ve historically relied on content partners, such as King Features, for syndicated materials to help supplement our work, including national articles as well as comics and puzzle books.
King Features worked with a freelancer who used an AI agent to help build out this special section. It was inserted into our paper without review from our editorial team, and we presented the section without any acknowledgement that it was from a third-party organization.
King Features released a statement to Chicago Public Media saying it has “a strict policy with our staff, cartoonists, columnists, and freelance writers against the use of AI to create content. The Heat Index summer supplement was created by a freelance content creator who used AI in its story development without disclosing the use of AI. We are terminating our relationship with this individual. We regret this incident and are working with the handful of publishing partners who acquired this supplement.”
We are in a moment of great transformation in journalism and technology, and at the same time our industry continues to be besieged by business challenges. This should be a learning moment for all journalism organizations: Our work is valued — and valuable — because of the humanity behind it.
At Chicago Public Media, we are proud of our credible, independent journalism, created for and by people. And part of the journalistic process is a commitment to acknowledging mistakes. It is unacceptable that this content was inaccurate, and it is equally unacceptable that we did not make it clear to readers that the section was produced outside the Sun-Times newsroom. Our audiences expect content with our name on it to meet our editorial standards.
Chicago Sun-Times: “It wasn’t us, it was our third-party partner King Features! We maintain the highest journalistic integrity!” King Features: “It wasn’t us, it was a lone rogue nameless freelancer! We demand the highest integrity from our freelancers! But, yeah, oops.” Am I the only one getting a kick out of the gravely serious tone of this notice? Yes, they totally f–ked up, but the language here is so self-flagellating… all for an explanation that’s still basically passing off the buck to someone else, not once but twice. Something about the high stakes with which they’re treating the snafu is tickling my funny bone. This totally feels like it could be an episode of the forthcoming midwestern newspaper-set Office reboot, The Paper!
As for the AI of it all, between the technology ascribing fake movie reviews to real critics in the Megalopolis trailer, to its making an X-rated boo-boo by slapping the Wicked Barbie doll boxes with a link to an adult website, at what point can we drop the “intelligence” part, and just call it “artificial”?
Photos credit: Anna Tarazevich/Pexels, Lory Lory/Pexels, Mike Jones/Pexels
Don’t they employ proof readers? I understand that the article was submitted, but who was in charge of double checking it?
And fact checkers! How this got through says a lot about their processes. And clearly isn’t a one-time thing.
They wont fact check a book list recommendation… but there’s a minimum quality expected, come on. Non existent books published ? That’s pure incompetence. I hope I know the AI used, so i never use it
This is my first thought too. They don’t fact check anything? When I worked at a small regional publication that put out features, we even had authors send in sources for us to randomly call/email. Is this not done anymore?
I’m sure nobody has the money/staff for that.
Proof readers and fact checkers for a fun summer reading list? Probably not.
Journalism, especially local, is dying such a slow and dangerous death. Two month ago, the Chicago Sun-Time lost 20% of their staff after a buyout offer due to “fiscal hardship.” They barely have enough people to do the actual news reporting, much less the extra stuff.
Even if they don’t do this, it shows that none of them were curious enough about the list to even read it to see what books made the list.
Whenever you do any type of AI process, it always warns, the user, to check results for accuracy before running with the results. Some heads maybe rolled from this.
Also, don’t those lists usually include like a picture of the cover, the cost, the publishers, etc?? It made up ALL of that??
Right! Every list I’ve seen tells you how to find the book! Or was all that made up, too?
No. They don’t employ anyone.
The factcheckers got laid off before the writers.
Weeeeell, it kind of is serious. The readers of the Sun-Times assume the content comes from and has been edited by the staff of the Sun-Times. So, when something is so ludicrously wrong, the readers are going to wonder what the heck is going on there and be suspicious of other content.
And everything has a byline of some sort, AP, King Features, etc., is somewhere on the page.
A reading list is both low stakes and easy to double check when you go to buy the books listed. But I would definitely wonder how much else is being generated with AI that would be harder to check.
This technology is being pushed harder than a George Foreman Grill, and as far as I can tell, it’s way less useful and WAY more damaging to the world, both in terms of its staggering environmental costs and the prevalence of disinformation it spews. I have some idea of why the tech bros and oligarchs are all-in on AI, but I feel like I’m missing the whole story because it is insane how this is being shoved down our throats.
Part of the story is that using AI generated content is —or will be — cheaper and more malleable than employing actual human beings. I think another side is part of the ongoing effort to silo the information that people actually receive/are allowed to receive. Verified facts don’t matter nearly as much as they did when we claimed to want a well-educated electorate.
I don’t. blame the Sun-Times, they weren’t the only newspaper to run what is essentially syndicated content. The point of syndicated content is that the syndication org undertakes the editing and fact-checking etc.
However, I do not understand why ordinary people are “embracing” AI. You are going to embrace yourself out of a job. All of what is happening right now is a training exercise for the various AI companies to train and test their products. Bosses and big business love AI for a reason and that reason is driving down labor costs and not having to deal with employees who might organize or demand their worth or expect benefits.
I had such an argument with my brother when he told me he’d started using Chat GPT in writing his grant proposals.
My main arguments:
1 How will they use YOUR content? Will they credit or pay you?
2 Who can now access it?
3 How do you know that grant directors won’t receive so many proposals with the same style + tone that they come to recognize Chat GPT generated work? They won’t be pleased at that and will question your credibility.
I hope your brother proofreads the hell out of whatever slop Chat GPT comes up with and does some major revisions. So much of this AI stuff is just gibberish or totally wrong.
I can also always tell when something was written by AI. It usually sounds ludicrous and there are numerous tells.
You might want to mention to your brother that the use of AI might violate ethics rules if he works for a NP. Many are instituting pretty strict anti-AI policies because of the environmental toll and the cost to human jobs and livelihoods. And if they’re not, they should be — it is absolutely unethical for any NP focused on helping people or the planet to engage with AI for anything a person can do.
I suspect one of the reasons the LinkedIn job site is such a mess these days is because employers advertising for “writers/editors/content creators” put applicants through a grueling time-wasting writing process, don’t hire them…then farm the responses for AI.
I think it is high stakes—it affects the credibility of the newspaper.
Completely artificial!
Unfortunately we will see much more of this.
‘We are actively investigating the accuracy of other content in the special section.’ What???? They’ve just been accepting stuff without reading it?? Or reading it & not double-checking it??? Gadzooks, how standards have fallen!
I’m picturing a filmpmontage of this discovery processing through the chain-of-command.
Actually – would be interesting to know the King Features freelancer’s process.
Ugh.
For people looking for books recs, Pajiba just dropped an interesting summer book list.
https://www.pajiba.com/book_reviews/a-summer-reading-list-written-by-an-actual-human.php
My sister worked as a reporter in the 80s and 90s for regional papers in NH and our parents had to help supply her with necessities toilet paper and groceries. And this was a LONG time ago, before the extreme enshittification of the Trump & Covid eras kicked in.