Comment by sallveburrpi

Comment by sallveburrpi 3 hours ago

19 replies

I would consider it gross negligence on the journalists part to not know the technical details here.

It’s really not that hard; as someone else on this thread pointed out even my grandma knows this…

You can find out the technical details in one quick search.

How someone like this gets a paying job as a journalist is beyond me.

pixl97 2 hours ago

>How someone like this gets a paying job as a journalist is beyond me.

You seem highly confused on what a journalists job is in this era. Very few publishers are about correctness. It's about speed of getting the article out and getting as many eyeballs as possible to look at the ads in the article.

Or as the saying goes, A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.

  • sallveburrpi 2 hours ago

    You could easily replace them with an LLM if that were the case.

    Although I don’t completely disagree with your cynical take I don’t think that’s actually the case for most of the Guardians journalists, they do a lot of quality reporting too

    • Cpoll an hour ago

      > You could easily replace them with an LLM if that were the case.

      We're already seeing this happen.

    • nickthegreek an hour ago

      The journalist should have used the LLM to explain how this wasn’t a hack but a common mistake made by untrained workers.

    • ben_w an hour ago

      Back when LLM chatbots were new and shiny, I was comparing the failure modes to journalism by way of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.

      Sure, deep investigative jounalism with real skill and effort behind it is a thing; but it is an expensive thing, and opinion pieces disguised as jounalism are much cheaper, as is reporting on other people's reports.

      • Forgeties79 an hour ago

        At the end of the day, we the audience reward the behavior unfortunately

BurningFrog an hour ago

It's important to understand who becomes a journalist in this age.

It's people who are very good with words, and at talking to anyone and everyone about anything, both is a friendly and confrontation way.

They also have almost no understanding of math, science or technology. If they did, they'd get better paying jobs.

Journalism used to be a well paid prestigious career that attracted brilliant people. There is not enough money in what's left of that industry to do that anymore.

  • Avicebron 29 minutes ago

    I agree they have no understanding of math, science or technology. But I disagree with your assessment of motivations to get "better paying jobs", most people who went into journalism I knew were in brownstones right out of college. They didn't need the money, they inherited it, it was the lifestyle they were after.. that's why we get the journalism we do..

  • tsunamifury 4 minutes ago

    Haha. I was a journalist for many years. I went to UC Berkeley. I likely current have a far better paying job than you and have invented technical concepts that founded the LLM.

    Me thinks the fool speaks of himself.

  • pessimizer 14 minutes ago

    I think you have the source of the problem wrong. It's just rich kids who don't actually need the salary, and want to align to a point of view that gets them a contract to write a book, so they get invited to the right parties. They don't know anything, or care about anything.

    Journalism school is "eye-wateringly" expensive:

    > J-school attendees might get a benefit from their journalism degree, but it comes at an eye-watering cost. The price tag of the Columbia Journalism School, for instance, is $105,820 for a 10-month program, $147,418 for a 12-month program, or $108,464 per year for a two-year program. That’s a $216,928 graduate degree, on top of all the costs associated with gaining the undergraduate prerequisites. (Columbia, it seems important to say, is also the publisher of Columbia Journalism Review, the publication you’re now reading.)

    https://www.cjr.org/special_report/do-we-need-j-schools.php

    > It's people who are very good with words,

    They are also not good with words.

kiba 2 hours ago

To us, it's a life skill. To a non-technical person, it's black magic.

Some folks had to be taught on how folder structures work because they grew up with the appliance we called a "phone" as opposed to a real computer that also happened to be known as a "phone".

  • phantasmish 2 hours ago

    I can assure you that plenty of people who were using computers before smartphones, and who have used them every day at work for decades, also do not grasp what we could consider the very basics of file management.

  • p-e-w 2 hours ago

    > To us, it's a life skill. To a non-technical person, it's black magic.

    I’m sorry, but “this text is black on black background; the actual letters are still there” isn’t “black magic” unless someone is being deliberately obtuse.

    • tsunamifury 2 minutes ago

      Please explain to me, in detail, without saying an LLM how expert manifolds work.

      I’m guessing to you, it is also black magic.

    • ben_w an hour ago

      So I don't know your specialty, but I'm going to make a wild guess and assume that it isn't stage magic.

      State magicians have a whole range of different ways to make something seem like it's levitating, or to apparently get a signed playing card inside a fruit that they get someone in the audience to cut open to reveal.

      To a magician, these things are cute, not mysterious.

      To the general public… a significant percentage have problems with paged results and scroll bars. Including my dad, who developed military IFF simulation software before he retired, and then spent several years of retirement using Google before realising it gave more than three results at a time.

      Would he, with experience working with the military, have made this soecific mistake about redaction? Perhaps, perhaps not, but the level of ignorance was well within his range. (I'm not better, it's just my ignorance is e.g. setting fire to resistors).

      *Our* "common sense" isn't universal.

      • p-e-w 18 minutes ago

        Your analogy fails because the purpose of stage magic is concealing what’s going on. That’s not what happened here. Someone just made a really stupid mistake that even non-technical folks can accidentally discover.

        There are undoubtedly some people who would be fooled by this, but you don’t have to be technical in order to not be one of them.

pwg 2 hours ago

Most journalists are ex. English majors (or some other non-technical degree). I would not expect any (even the supposed tech. journalists) to understand the technology they report upon to the level that us here on HN understand that same technology.

Their job is to write coherent articles that gather views, not truly understand what it is they are writing about. That's why the Gell-Mann Amnesia [1] aspect so often crops up for any technical article (hint, it also crops up for every article, but we don't recognize the mistakes the journalist makes in the articles where we don't have the underlying knowledge to recognize the mistakes).

[1] https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/

Fricken 2 hours ago

>some of the file redaction can be undone with Photoshop techniques, or by simply highlighting text to paste into a word processing file.

That's the first sentence of the article, and that's all there is to it.

[removed] 2 hours ago
[deleted]