We can see the horror that should absolutely not be committed. The intrusion of the “artificial image” into the sanctuary of information, of reality. Manipulation is immediately instructions given to the machine linked to the pixel. In principle, opposition to the innovation of the moment recommends fighting it, or at least moving away from such use. And the multiplicity of risks of being reviewed, from lies to fake news, through the most extravagant biases. Not to mention the nightmares of the reporter who would now see himself as useless. The presence on the ground of wars or catastrophes being “imagined” by digital artifice, long live the economies generated by the calculation system in the full sense of the term.
Certainly, these dangers are very real and media education and professional vigilance are essential.
AI is here, like a global tidal wave. The salutary concern for ethics requires mentioning the use of this new means. A safeguard that can be considered modest. Its merit is cash app database nevertheless to guarantee visibility, even if – to risk a risky comparison – the nutriscore does not prevent the consumption of harmful products. In addition, on a European scale too, the excesses and risks generated by the new technology are taken into account by the AI Act which came into force on February 2. The ambition is to “build trustworthy AI” thanks to the regulations put in place.
An unexpected effect of AI
However, the parable of the “ocean shepherds” can principle have another reading. As we have seen, here used as a reconstruction technique, AI requires a return to the original element. Thus, the visualization of Christian Hoche’s article questions the reporter’s own work. How did he conduct his investigation? Who did he interview? Where did he go? What was the environment like? What was the interior of a el salvador phone number library house like, the clothes worn, the ambient light, etc.? The questions are countless. Starting with this one: What does the reporter directly concerned by the “visualization” of his article published in l’Express 50 years ago say? Does the re-presentation work of the young colleague, an expert in AI, correspond to the experience of the former field journalist?
“In fact, I was not a direct witness to this story,” says C. Hoche.
When I arrived in Somalia, several people instructions given to the machine told me principle about it. So I began an investigative work after the fact, so to speak. I met the people who had experienced it, including President Siad Barré, an FAO employee and many others. So I was able to verify and cross-check this story. So I recounted this incredible episode of the Somali drama that I called ‘The Shepherds of the Ocean’.”
The latter in turn questions the journalistic gesture on which it is based.
The instructions given to the machine to recreate an artificial reality requires us to return to the source. Through this feedback effect, through what is the endless learning on which it feeds, would we dare say that AI examines journalism? In any case, it raises many bfb directory fundamental questions, and first and foremost, that of the image in the information. We know that it is a pretext, at the heart of an action, explanatory, illustrative, dated. But instructions given to the machine this knowledge is relative. The nomenclature is almost non-existent, yet it is in some way put to the test at every moment, in these times when we talk about ‘image civilization’ in social media, platforms and of course so-called traditional media. Perhaps we don’t need a nomenclature..