> If Jimmy Allred says it’s raining, and W. Lee O’Daniel says it isn’t raining, Texas newspapermen quote them both, and don’t look out the window to see which is lying, and to tell the readers what the truth is at the moment.
If an AI tool, or for that matter a meddling editor, says a headline is "framing the action as unprecedented in a way that might subtly critique the administration", the correct response is "yes, that was the idea".
zaphar · 11h ago
I don't think most reporting bias takes the form of incorrect facts. It takes the form of picking which facts to share driven by the facts that matter the most to the particular reporter sharing them. This results in slanted coverage even if technically it's "factual".
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF · 11h ago
That as well as the words and tone that are used to describe things and the context surrounding those things. A headline that is neither negative nor positive is not strictly unbiased because it implies that the thing being reported is not very unusual. If it is unusual, then the neutral tone is communicating a bias that this unusual thing should not be regarded as such.
bmelton · 10h ago
“... by definition, news is something that almost never happens.”
- Bruce Schneier
mr_toad · 10h ago
Except for the annual “health system in crisis” story.
Edit: substitute any issue you care to name for “health system”, there’s always a crisis that can be used to grab eyeballs.
JoshTriplett · 11h ago
Take a look at the headline flagged in the article, which the tool flagged as "framing the action as unprecedented in a way that might subtly critique the administration". The headline is factually accurate, and the facts are not cherry-picked.
Yes, some reporting is biased. But some reporting is simply accurately reporting damaging information, and "biased" is a way of attacking that without addressing the substance of the problem.
zaphar · 11h ago
I agree that article's headline is pretty factual nor are the facts cherry-picked. But "some reporting is biased" is heavily understating the problem. And I hypothesize that the reason there is a leap to "This is biased" today on reporting is because the news media organizations have participated in the cherry-picked facts case to enough of a degree that trust has eroded.
Which is perhaps why organizations are searching for ways to not appear biased and begin to restore that trust. I think the reason the LLM approach is likely to fail is because it is unable to detect the "missing facts" case and can only really advise about sentiment and phrasing. Which is not I think the actual problem that needs fixing.
JoshTriplett · 11h ago
I agree that an AI is unlikely to help. But also, I doubt that the primary reason is "restoring trust". I think the primary reason for many of them is that some of their readers react strongly to things they don't want to hear, and they're afraid of losing customers, so they're watering down their reporting to avoid being inconveniently right.
Or, even less charitably, management and employees have different politics, and management are the ones who find the articles inconvenient.
To be clear, there are absolutely biased news sources out there. For many of them, the bias is the point, and they have no particular desire to "restore trust" because they're already trusted by people who only want to read things supportive of their party. But a politician who finds the truth inconvenient will decry everything accurate as biased.
tempodox · 10h ago
How could an LLM even decide whether facts are presented in a balanced way? Someone at Law360 seems to believe in a magical oracle.
sneak · 10h ago
The factual accuracy of a statement does not have any bearing on the bias or agenda of the person making the statement.
I have seen many documentaries that contain only facts and real events, but nevertheless are pushing a heavily biased agenda. Which facts we report and which we highlight and how we frame them tells a story.
o11c · 9h ago
That's why "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is so important. Yet we don't even enforce the limited perjury laws we have.
The common "must present both sides" approach can fail the "nothing but the truth" criterion. But even with its many errors, it's better than not trying anything at all.
egberts1 · 7h ago
"slanted", isn't that a form of biasness? #headduck
IshKebab · 11h ago
Yeah the BBC suffers badly from this problem, because they are required by Ofcom to have fair and "balanced" reporting, and they interpret that as meaning they always have to get one view from each side of a story. Doesn't matter how batshit or fringe a side is, they'll present them equally.
hitekker · 9h ago
You might have seen different BBC stories than I have.
The other day actually, I saw a newscaster describe the horrors Apartheid in South Africa as though it were happening today. She then closed with "... [Apartheid] is now no longer enforced" and transitioned quickly to the next topic. Not ended or abolished, but merely "not enforced".
Their bias is rather pernicious.
rafram · 9h ago
> Like when the BBC said all converts to Islam are "reverts"
They didn't. They used their interviewees' own preferred terminology to refer to them in the story, which is fine. "Reverts" is the most common term among Muslims. Sort of like how capitalizing God in a story about Christians doesn't invalidate the beliefs of people who worship multiple gods.
> Or when the BBC framed an Ad as racist
The first line: "Scottish Labour has described [...]".
IshKebab · 1h ago
> Or when the BBC framed an Ad as racist, because it called out a politician's sectarian & anti-LGBTQ appeals
This is an insane characterisation of that article, which seems fair to me and not at all what I was talking about. Wanting your race to be represented in politics is a perfectly reasonable view and it doesn't need "calling out".
ars · 11h ago
Is that why they come across as so antisemitic?
Obviously there are biased antisemitic news organizations, but of the high-profile ostensibly neutral ones BBC stands head and shoulders above the rest in the level of antisemitism.
(You don't have to take my word for it - a quick Google will find huge numbers of examples. Usually they'll get criticized and then post a correction, so in some sense they themselves acknowledge the problem - yet it keeps happening.)
bigyabai · 10h ago
Which definition of "semite" are we using, today? It tends to get thrown around to mean a lot of different things on HN.
mhb · 10h ago
You're happy to redefine genocide in a ludicrously expansive fashion but pretend to need clarification about what antisemitic means in this context? I know, you're just asking questions.
adrian_b · 4h ago
"Semitic" is a word that includes both hebrews and arabs, because both are classified as descendants of Shem in the Bible.
Despite that, most people who use the word "antisemitic" apply it only to something that is done against hebrews, and not to something done against arabs.
Therefore it makes sense to request clarification about what someone means by that word, i.e. if they meant that BBC is anti-Israel or it is anti-arabs.
It would be much better if everyone who means that something is anti-Israeli, would say it clearly, instead of using the ambiguous word "antisemitic".
The word "Semitic" has been created due to a misunderstanding of the Bible, because there the classification of the people was not based on real descendance from common ancestors, but it was based on the political dependence of those people at the time when the Book of Genesis was written. Unfortunately, nobody has found a suitable replacement for this word.
(In the Bible, the descendants of Shem were those dominated by Assyro-Babylonia, while the descendants of Ham were those dominated by Egypt, regardless of their true ancestors. For instance the Phoenicians were classified as descendants of Ham and the Hebrews as descendants of Shem, despite being 2 extremely closely related populations, separated by little else except their different religions.)
mhb · 1h ago
Yes, of course. But in this context there was no confusion and no ambiguity.
bigyabai · 5h ago
I don't believe I ever did that. Sounds like you're deflecting.
mhb · 1h ago
You never did what? Deflecting what?
mhb · 10h ago
> Is that why they come across as so antisemitic?
If you're inclined to offer the most charitable interpretation in the universe, perhaps.
sandwichsphinx · 12h ago
reminds me of the essay "Politics and the English Language" George Orwell wrote in 1946, it's a good read
lazyeye · 9h ago
This really is not it.
Outright lies are very ineffective in manipulating public opinion because they can be easily disproven.
It's much more about pretending its only a little rain when its raining alot. Ignoring the rain when it doesnt support your narrative. Pretending the rain is really important when its not important at all. Pretending it only rains where you are and much less everywhere else etc etc etc.
JoshTriplett · 9h ago
> Outright lies are very ineffective in manipulating public opinion because they can be easily disproven.
I sincerely wish this were true. "A lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on."
lazyeye · 8h ago
Convenient half-truths, distortions, mis-characterizations (to support a desired narrative) go alot farther, faster.
thrance · 8h ago
Have you looked at American politics recently? The current administration creates huge lies daily, and most of the media relays them uncritically. It's a level of shamelessness previously reserved for countries like Russia.
lazyeye · 8h ago
The previous administration lied alot too but because of your own personal bias you are unable to see that.
thrance · 1h ago
I don't hold them in my heart, but no comparison is possible here.
lazyeye · 56m ago
Of course, that's as expected.
thrance · 49m ago
What is? Can you seriously claim that Trump and his administration are acting more truthfully than Biden's? Don't be stupid.
Just look at what happened in Iran, it's a shitfest of constantly changing narratives, going from warmongerism to peace claims. Lying about what they did and wether it was successful. Lying about wether Israel is on board with making peace.
xp84 · 11h ago
If “the administration” is The Good Party, the action is “groundbreaking” and “landmark.” If the administration is The Bad Man, the action is “unprecedented.” This is how you frame things to maximize the propaganda effect and scare/please the audience, while maintaining plausible deniability that you’re definitely not pushing an agenda.
(If my comment offends you, I assure you, don’t worry, your party is definitely the Good Party in this scenario.)
JoshTriplett · 11h ago
I'm well aware of how spin works. However, that doesn't mean that such characterizarions are always wrong. One of the severe problems in current politics is that reporting that looks bad for a particular party will always be characterized as biased, whether the reporting is accurate or not.
JoshTriplett · 7h ago
(off-topic)
> characterizarions
Sigh, mobile keyboard. *characterizations
rrr_oh_man · 11h ago
"It says here in this history book that, luckily, the good guys have won every single time"
jerf · 12h ago
Today, somewhere in the world, some people made an event occur. Some people approved and some people disapproved. It impacted some people more than others, which some people think may be a bad thing, although others think that it may have been a good thing. The event stemmed from many past events, which many people have various strong opinions about. Politicians made various strong statements about the event, as well as a few celebrities. The future impact of the event is under debate, though experts agree that the situation is complicated and people should probably think about it very carefully before coming to conclusions. It is unclear what the market will do in response to this event.
Herring · 12h ago
> Party A: wants to abolish slavery
> Party B: wants way more slaves
> Media: record low percentage of Americans satisfied with agriculture today!
Impartiality is very important.
bilbo0s · 9h ago
In unrelated news:
General Sherman Begins Demolition in Georgia For Urgently Needed Infrastructure Projects
I mean, you could ask ChatGPT or something to make some pretty braindead impartial newspaper headlines about, like, the Holocaust or slavery. I guess you're right, in some cases, impartiality will come off as a bit ridiculous to the common sense segment of society.
nxobject · 11h ago
Welp, I’ve read every newspaper article - at least I have an excuse not to read the news anymore for my sanity.
The problem with trying too hard to neutrally report both sides of a story is that's not unbiased either, it's just biased in favour of the side that can lie the most convincingly.
const_cast · 2h ago
It's also naturally biased in favor of whoever is more extreme. It's like trying to balance a scale so you place both items on the scale... but one is a rock and the other is a feather.
wredcoll · 11h ago
I am so, so tired, of "both sides" reporting. How about just report the facts instead?
schmidtleonard · 11h ago
It's a rare issue that you can't swing both ways by selecting the subset of facts to focus on. Attention doesn't just matter, it's all that matters. This is why adversarial forums are so important even if they so often degenerate into shouting past one another: each side has the ability and motivation to bring its strongest facts, so they are at least present in the discussion, even if debate tactics add tons of noise and confirmation bias dampens the effects.
wredcoll · 10h ago
Yes, in principle, but I object to "reporters" merely quoting people instead of attempting to actually verify if what they said has any basis in reality.
That being said, I'm not sure how much this actually matters, trump seems to pretty comprehensively prove that people would rather hear lies, even if they know they are lies.
kube-system · 11h ago
Nearly all political issues are rooted in philosophical differences of opinion. "The facts" are merely the icing on the cake that various factions use to lure people to their ideology. Factual reporting is better than direct opinion reporting, but both are inherently interpreted by people in the context of the Overton window.
wredcoll · 11h ago
You're not wrong, but very often those philosophical differences are being masked by lies.
I don't want to get into the gory details in this tiny text box, but any number of current fear based political campaigns use wildly "distorted" facts to bolster their arguments, and most of the time reporters just blindly repeat whatever the person says without attempting to verify it.
MangoToupe · 9h ago
First you'd have to get people to agree on what a fact is, let alone what the facts are.
an0malous · 11h ago
Because there’s basically no such thing and choosing which facts you report is a huge source of bias anyway
jauntywundrkind · 9h ago
> Several sentences in the story were flagged as biased, including this one: "It’s the first time in 60 years that a president has mobilized a state’s National Guard without receiving a request to do so from the state’s governor." According to the bias indicator, this sentence is "framing the action as unprecedented in a way that might subtly critique the administration." It was best to give more context to “balance the tone."
"Might subtly critique"?! This isn't protecting versus bias, this isn't even charitably regardable as cowardice.
It's an attack on reason & reporting. To shield the worst cry bullies & offenders. It's ghastly how basic simple reporting so offends, that the public interest is sabotaged by these foes. We face such a need to improve the media, and this is the opposite path, of craven blunt un-intelligently intermediated corporatism.
saaaaaam · 11h ago
I said to a colleague the other day that Law360’s reporting seems to be more tortuous and weird than usual. I wonder if this is why.
There was one piece on a case I’ve been following quite closely where I was genuinely unable to make sense of what had happened from the Law360 report without sitting down and spelling my way through it.
wredcoll · 11h ago
Remember kids, if you don't like the truth, just accuse it of being biased and force it to change!
bilbo0s · 9h ago
Truth is biased. That's what makes it truth.
If you wanted unbiased information, you should have asked for facts..
and then collected as many of them as you possibly could.
MangoToupe · 9h ago
More people should really read Baudrillard. Objectivity and language don't combine very well. Show me a person who wants the facts and I'll show you someone who is easily manipulated.
jasonthorsness · 12h ago
LLMs and ML algorithms are beginning to influence the entire lifecycle of articles: researching, writing, editing, publication, discovery (TikTok), and consumption (ChatGPT summarize this). With the few big players, it could be the same model involved at every step. It's scary how a small change to a system prompt could subtly influence things across the board and guide popular opinion.
exiguus · 7h ago
I have so many question.
Let's say a media outlet, like a newspaper, commits to common journalism best practices, such as neutrality. In my opinion, this does not mean avoiding certain words; it means presenting different perspectives on a topic based on evidence.
Besides that, if someone writes an Op-Ed or commentary, the author expresses their personal opinion. How does this work with this AI thingy? Currently it looks like plain censorship, isn't it?
And why should I buy a newspaper that does not represent my political or personal opinion? I thought that was how it worked.
eddythompson80 · 7h ago
well, in this particular example I think the answer is straightforward: it's just an ad so it doesn't matter.
This is a marketing/sales piece for LexisNexis by their marketing agency as they try to sell AI services to their customers (law firms and other legal professions). It gives them a news article to share with their customers and tell them something like "see, we're taking the AI plunge. You should too. We offer a bunch of legal AI services, lets talk". Now their CEO and sales people can keep saying "I'm sure you've seen the news about Law360. We think AI is finally ready for legal tasks. You know, as an assistant."
In reality, they are probably to run the article, look at what the AI says and shrug and move on.
BrenBarn · 12h ago
Who checks the bias detector for bias?
ethan_smith · 10h ago
This creates an infinite regress problem - bias detection systems are themselves trained on data reflecting human judgments about what constitutes "bias."
kelseyfrog · 7h ago
That's the nice thing. You don't. The conceit of centrism/Liberalism is that extreme voices cancel out. Just ingest a large enough corpus and the central limit theorum takes care of the rest.
MangoToupe · 9h ago
To me, a newsroom's bias IS its value. If you let me know your values, I can actually interpret what you're saying. It's the pretense of impartiality that makes me distrust someone.
pkilgore · 10h ago
What I do not understand is this top-down mandate that people use specific tools.
Mandate productivity, mandate quality; the tools will be adopted if they are sharp.
But elevating the way work is performed above the work itself? Weird.
lovich · 10h ago
I don't know how you read this article and came away that they were merely trying to force adoption of AI tools.
This is LexisNexis requiring all of their workers run their output through a censorship machine to comply with the whims of the current administration. It has zero benefits to the workers so of course they have to mandate it
iFire · 9h ago
Does this mean automated censorship by AI "bias" detection?
add-sub-mul-div · 12h ago
"Bias" and "narrative" have become meaningless words that people use when encountering ideas they don't like. Or when they believe that neither side could ever be right about an issue, that it's virtuous for a stance to be in the middle of the current Overton window.
MangoToupe · 11h ago
Even presenting a given problem as "merely" two-sided is often disingenuous.
For instance, if you "just" look at abortion, trans rights, and immigration, you may assume the two parties in america present diametrically-opposed groups of people (...which is even itself quite debatable). But this is only because the two parties don't differ much (or at least, don't bother to platform enough to evaluate) on most topics politics could be about.
Gormo · 11h ago
I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to presume that more valid positions are likely to be found closer to the midpoint of the current Overton window. I suspect that as a matter of Bayesian probability, more extreme positions are more likely to be wrong.
const_cast · 2h ago
Based on a gander at history, I doubt it. Usually one side is actually right and it seems very obvious now but was not obvious at the time. And, typically, the moderate or midpoint position seem incredibly stupid now. Like the 3/5ths compromise.
ElevenLathe · 11h ago
The whole premise of the Overton window is that it does not represent the full spectrum of opinions on some issues, which is unchanging, but rather some socially constructed window onto that spectrum, which does change. Assuming that the midpoint is probably correct is equivalent to saying that any change from the status quo is probably bad. Is that what you really mean?
MangoToupe · 11h ago
On which topic? Saying the average person can't decide between two viewpoints on any given topic seems ridiculous.
nh23423fefe · 12h ago
I don't like this idea. Bias is lying to advance your position. Narrative is telling a story to persuade instead of making an argument to persuade.
JoshTriplett · 12h ago
While I'd favor defining words rather than claiming they're meaningless, those aren't accurate definitions.
"Narrative" in this context is more like "attempting to steer the current discourse by making connections among things and positioning them as part of a coherent story", which can be positive (if the result is accurate and reasonable and helps people better understand what's going on) or negative (if it's spin or manufacturing consent). It's "narrative" to say "you should be afraid of X, it's the cause of all your problems". It's also "narrative" to say "here are the five different things we're currently doing to improve Y, and how they tie together into a coherent picture".
Also, bias would be easier to deal with if it were always "lying", or if it advanced a coherent position. It's much broader than that.
> If Jimmy Allred says it’s raining, and W. Lee O’Daniel says it isn’t raining, Texas newspapermen quote them both, and don’t look out the window to see which is lying, and to tell the readers what the truth is at the moment.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2023/11/14/rain-look/
If an AI tool, or for that matter a meddling editor, says a headline is "framing the action as unprecedented in a way that might subtly critique the administration", the correct response is "yes, that was the idea".
- Bruce Schneier
Edit: substitute any issue you care to name for “health system”, there’s always a crisis that can be used to grab eyeballs.
Yes, some reporting is biased. But some reporting is simply accurately reporting damaging information, and "biased" is a way of attacking that without addressing the substance of the problem.
Which is perhaps why organizations are searching for ways to not appear biased and begin to restore that trust. I think the reason the LLM approach is likely to fail is because it is unable to detect the "missing facts" case and can only really advise about sentiment and phrasing. Which is not I think the actual problem that needs fixing.
Or, even less charitably, management and employees have different politics, and management are the ones who find the articles inconvenient.
To be clear, there are absolutely biased news sources out there. For many of them, the bias is the point, and they have no particular desire to "restore trust" because they're already trusted by people who only want to read things supportive of their party. But a politician who finds the truth inconvenient will decry everything accurate as biased.
I have seen many documentaries that contain only facts and real events, but nevertheless are pushing a heavily biased agenda. Which facts we report and which we highlight and how we frame them tells a story.
The common "must present both sides" approach can fail the "nothing but the truth" criterion. But even with its many errors, it's better than not trying anything at all.
Like when the BBC said all converts to Islam are "reverts"; https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-did-the-bbc-say-musl... ; the nasty implication being that one religion is the status quo of humanity
Or when the BBC framed an Ad as racist, because it called out a politician's sectarian & anti-LGBTQ appeals https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg0g18989o https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1ksv0y7/refo...
The other day actually, I saw a newscaster describe the horrors Apartheid in South Africa as though it were happening today. She then closed with "... [Apartheid] is now no longer enforced" and transitioned quickly to the next topic. Not ended or abolished, but merely "not enforced".
Their bias is rather pernicious.
They didn't. They used their interviewees' own preferred terminology to refer to them in the story, which is fine. "Reverts" is the most common term among Muslims. Sort of like how capitalizing God in a story about Christians doesn't invalidate the beliefs of people who worship multiple gods.
> Or when the BBC framed an Ad as racist
The first line: "Scottish Labour has described [...]".
This is an insane characterisation of that article, which seems fair to me and not at all what I was talking about. Wanting your race to be represented in politics is a perfectly reasonable view and it doesn't need "calling out".
Obviously there are biased antisemitic news organizations, but of the high-profile ostensibly neutral ones BBC stands head and shoulders above the rest in the level of antisemitism.
(You don't have to take my word for it - a quick Google will find huge numbers of examples. Usually they'll get criticized and then post a correction, so in some sense they themselves acknowledge the problem - yet it keeps happening.)
Despite that, most people who use the word "antisemitic" apply it only to something that is done against hebrews, and not to something done against arabs.
Therefore it makes sense to request clarification about what someone means by that word, i.e. if they meant that BBC is anti-Israel or it is anti-arabs.
It would be much better if everyone who means that something is anti-Israeli, would say it clearly, instead of using the ambiguous word "antisemitic".
The word "Semitic" has been created due to a misunderstanding of the Bible, because there the classification of the people was not based on real descendance from common ancestors, but it was based on the political dependence of those people at the time when the Book of Genesis was written. Unfortunately, nobody has found a suitable replacement for this word.
(In the Bible, the descendants of Shem were those dominated by Assyro-Babylonia, while the descendants of Ham were those dominated by Egypt, regardless of their true ancestors. For instance the Phoenicians were classified as descendants of Ham and the Hebrews as descendants of Shem, despite being 2 extremely closely related populations, separated by little else except their different religions.)
If you're inclined to offer the most charitable interpretation in the universe, perhaps.
Outright lies are very ineffective in manipulating public opinion because they can be easily disproven.
It's much more about pretending its only a little rain when its raining alot. Ignoring the rain when it doesnt support your narrative. Pretending the rain is really important when its not important at all. Pretending it only rains where you are and much less everywhere else etc etc etc.
I sincerely wish this were true. "A lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on."
Just look at what happened in Iran, it's a shitfest of constantly changing narratives, going from warmongerism to peace claims. Lying about what they did and wether it was successful. Lying about wether Israel is on board with making peace.
(If my comment offends you, I assure you, don’t worry, your party is definitely the Good Party in this scenario.)
> characterizarions
Sigh, mobile keyboard. *characterizations
> Party B: wants way more slaves
> Media: record low percentage of Americans satisfied with agriculture today!
Impartiality is very important.
General Sherman Begins Demolition in Georgia For Urgently Needed Infrastructure Projects
I mean, you could ask ChatGPT or something to make some pretty braindead impartial newspaper headlines about, like, the Holocaust or slavery. I guess you're right, in some cases, impartiality will come off as a bit ridiculous to the common sense segment of society.
That being said, I'm not sure how much this actually matters, trump seems to pretty comprehensively prove that people would rather hear lies, even if they know they are lies.
I don't want to get into the gory details in this tiny text box, but any number of current fear based political campaigns use wildly "distorted" facts to bolster their arguments, and most of the time reporters just blindly repeat whatever the person says without attempting to verify it.
"Might subtly critique"?! This isn't protecting versus bias, this isn't even charitably regardable as cowardice.
It's an attack on reason & reporting. To shield the worst cry bullies & offenders. It's ghastly how basic simple reporting so offends, that the public interest is sabotaged by these foes. We face such a need to improve the media, and this is the opposite path, of craven blunt un-intelligently intermediated corporatism.
There was one piece on a case I’ve been following quite closely where I was genuinely unable to make sense of what had happened from the Law360 report without sitting down and spelling my way through it.
If you wanted unbiased information, you should have asked for facts..
and then collected as many of them as you possibly could.
Let's say a media outlet, like a newspaper, commits to common journalism best practices, such as neutrality. In my opinion, this does not mean avoiding certain words; it means presenting different perspectives on a topic based on evidence.
Besides that, if someone writes an Op-Ed or commentary, the author expresses their personal opinion. How does this work with this AI thingy? Currently it looks like plain censorship, isn't it?
And why should I buy a newspaper that does not represent my political or personal opinion? I thought that was how it worked.
This is a marketing/sales piece for LexisNexis by their marketing agency as they try to sell AI services to their customers (law firms and other legal professions). It gives them a news article to share with their customers and tell them something like "see, we're taking the AI plunge. You should too. We offer a bunch of legal AI services, lets talk". Now their CEO and sales people can keep saying "I'm sure you've seen the news about Law360. We think AI is finally ready for legal tasks. You know, as an assistant."
In reality, they are probably to run the article, look at what the AI says and shrug and move on.
Mandate productivity, mandate quality; the tools will be adopted if they are sharp.
But elevating the way work is performed above the work itself? Weird.
This is LexisNexis requiring all of their workers run their output through a censorship machine to comply with the whims of the current administration. It has zero benefits to the workers so of course they have to mandate it
For instance, if you "just" look at abortion, trans rights, and immigration, you may assume the two parties in america present diametrically-opposed groups of people (...which is even itself quite debatable). But this is only because the two parties don't differ much (or at least, don't bother to platform enough to evaluate) on most topics politics could be about.
"Narrative" in this context is more like "attempting to steer the current discourse by making connections among things and positioning them as part of a coherent story", which can be positive (if the result is accurate and reasonable and helps people better understand what's going on) or negative (if it's spin or manufacturing consent). It's "narrative" to say "you should be afraid of X, it's the cause of all your problems". It's also "narrative" to say "here are the five different things we're currently doing to improve Y, and how they tie together into a coherent picture".
Also, bias would be easier to deal with if it were always "lying", or if it advanced a coherent position. It's much broader than that.