\n
<\/p>\n
Hello again, and welcome back to Fast Company<\/i>\u2019s Plugged In<\/i>.<\/p>\n
Journalism might not be the world\u2019s single most important job, but it does have one unique distinction: 100% of journalists are interested in it. So it\u2019s no surprise that the profession is the subject of an outsize percentage of articles about the myriad ways AI is changing our world.<\/p>\n
I do admit, however, to be taken aback by how much of that coverage involves tales of journalists being embarrassed by entirely avoidable AI-fueled gaffes. On May 19, for example, Benjamin Mullin of The New York Times<\/i> reported<\/a> that The Future of Truth: How AI Reshapes Reality<\/i>, a new book by Steven Rosenbaum, executive director of the Sustainable Media Center<\/a> (and a Fast Company<\/i> contributor), contained at least five quotes that appeared to have been manufactured, mangled, or misattributed by AI.<\/p>\n Rosenbaum, who told Mullin he took \u201cfull responsibility\u201d for the errors, is hardly the only writer to let hallucinated sound bites slip into their work. Earlier in May, The Times<\/i> itself issued a correction<\/a> for an article<\/a> that had attributed an imaginary quote to a Canadian politician. Still, given the subject of Rosenbaum\u2019s book, its AI fabrications couldn\u2019t have been more freighted with irony.<\/p>\n Each time I read about some journalistic AI mishap, I ask myself whether I\u2019m at risk of being similarly ensnared. In this case, I\u2019m confident the answer is no, for the simple reason that I never insert anything from a chatbot\u2019s response directly into a story draft. Had a chatbot offered up a punchy quote from reporter\/podcaster Kara Swisher\u2014as one apparently did for Rosenbaum\u2014I wouldn\u2019t have assumed it was real unless I could trace it back to its source. That\u2019s what I might quote.<\/p>\n If every journalist resisted the temptation to cut and paste algorithmically generated text, far fewer of them would have AI blow up in their faces, Wile E. Coyote-style<\/a>. But I don\u2019t expect the self-owns to dwindle anytime soon. Indeed, they may proliferate as more writers succumb to AI’s siren call.<\/p>\n Writers caught in old-school literary transgressions such as plagiarism have often deflected blame onto their tools (such as cryptic handwritten notes<\/a>) or other people (say, overburdened research assistants<\/a>). Blaming a seemingly superhuman technological factotum may be even more tempting. Though Rosenbaum admitted culpability for his book\u2019s errors, he also told The Atlantic<\/i><\/a>\u2019s Will Oremus that he felt \u201cseduced and betrayed\u201d by AI.<\/p>\n As well as painfully underlining what can happen when someone gets overconfident about the competence of LLMs, the spate of faulty journalism has convinced me that transparency is in order. Media creators and consumers alike might be better off if AI\u2019s role in reporting and writing were more clearly spelled out. With that in mind, here\u2019s how I\u2019m using the technology\u2014and, crucially, not using it. <\/p>\n For better or worse, my wordsmithing is my own, except for the welcome quality control it receives from my Fast Company<\/i> editorial colleagues. To me, thinking about something and writing about it are pretty much the same act; I wouldn\u2019t know how to turn part of the job over to an algorithm. Even using the technology to brainstorm headlines\u2014which I\u2019ve done on rare occasion\u2014feels like more work than it\u2019s worth.<\/p>\n I do cheerfully admit to calling on AI in a variety of ways as I turn raw research into polished prose. In the past, I used Rev to transcribe interviews, Google\u2019s NotebookLM to summarize them, and Grammarly for proofreading assistance. More recently, I\u2019ve replaced them with similar features I built into the bespoke word processor I vibe-coded just for my own use. They\u2019re valuable, but any impact on the finished product is ultimately modest.<\/p>\n I also use chatbots, especially Gemini, every day. My goal is not to get answers from a bot (which I wouldn\u2019t fold into my work under any circumstances) but to point my way toward original, human-written sources, often on arcane topics. The bot is the beginning of the journey, not its destination.<\/p>\n So far, I\u2019ve found that AI\u2019s greatest gift to my reporting and writing hasn\u2019t involved doing any of it for me. Instead, it\u2019s Anthropic\u2019s Claude Code, which I use to make software that streamlines all the work that surrounds my real work. Along with my word processor, I\u2019ve built myself a note-taker, an email client, a Bluesky-Mastodon-Threads crossposter, and an RSS reader. They\u2019re exactly the apps I always wanted. And every minute they save me is more time I can invest in conducting interviews and other research, sussing out what they tell me, and pounding out copy.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not arguing that my approach is the only acceptable one. Alex Heath, founder of the Sources<\/i> newsletter<\/a>, told Maxwell Zeff of Wired<\/em> that he focuses on snagging scoops and leans heavily on AI<\/a> for the writing aspect of his work. I appreciate the disclosure, and\u2014more importantly\u2014am impressed by the results. May the day come when everyone in this business figures out how to use the technology in ways that will never leave them feeling sheepish, or worse.<\/p>\n You\u2019ve been reading<\/em> Plugged In, <\/em>Fast Company\u2019s weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to you\u2014or if you’re reading it on fastcompany.com\u2014you can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com<\/a> with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I\u2019m also on Bluesky<\/a>, Mastodon<\/a>, and Threads<\/a>, and you can <\/em>follow <\/em>Plugged In on Flipboard.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO pitch relies on a lot of AI faith Microsoft’s AI Copilot is getting a human-focused\u00a0streamlining\u00a0 Why are big AI companies embedding engineers with customers, and what does that mean? \u00a0Oura shrunk its new ring by 40% and made it look a lot more like jewelry Eileen Collins was the first woman to command a space shuttle. A new documentary shows how she got there The AI backlash is a danger for every brand nowMore top tech stories from Fast Company<\/h2>\n
The rocket launching company says it’ll become a major player in enterprise AI in the future.\u00a0Read More\u00a0\u2192<\/p>\n
The company is aiming to make the software easier to use for a growing number of workplace and personal tasks.\u00a0\u00a0Read More\u00a0\u2192<\/p>\n
If intelligence were a true utility, you wouldn’t need to send people to every customer to make the faucet work.\u00a0Read More\u00a0\u2192<\/p>\n
Customers wanted a smart ring that looked like jewelry, not a gadget. Oura spent years rebuilding its hardware from the inside out to deliver one.\u00a0Read More\u00a0\u2192<\/p>\n
‘Spacewoman’ chronicles how Collins persevered against odds to become the first female space shuttle pilot and commander.\u00a0Read More\u00a0\u2192<\/p>\n
Brands are particularly vulnerable to charges of inauthenticity, and AI is currently an inauthenticity force multiplier.\u00a0Read More\u00a0\u2192<\/p>\n