← the record
AIAAIC-1493

Hoodline use of AI to generate news solicits backlash

The use of AI to create news articles and fictional journalists by US neighbourhood news publisher Hoodline prompted questions about the ethics of the company and its owner. According to Gazetteer San Francisco , 'a substantial chunk of content on Hoodline’s website in recent months - save for a handful of stories reported and written by a few longtime (human) contributors - appears to be produced by a synthetic text generator.' 'Additionally,' it added, 'these stories are bylined by a rotating cast of five authors, most, if not all, of whose bylines appear to be AI-generated fabrication .' The same day, Hoodline publicly announced t hat it was using AI as part of a shift to 'hybrid content' in which junior-level journalists would use various AI tools to reblog police press releases and create reliable, simple news stories - a model intended to build the traffic and revenue. It also said it would start using a small badge next to each byline, indicating that stories are AI-assisted. Hoodline was acquired by Impress3 Media in 2021. The fracas was seen to raise questions about Impress3 and Hoodline's ethics, governance and transparency, as well as about the use of AI in journalism more broadly. Slop Slop is low-quality media—including writing and images—made using generative artificial intelligence technology. Source: Wikipedia 🔗 System 🤖 Hoodline 🔗 Documents 📃 Hoodline (2024). Letter from the publisher Operator: Hoodline Developer: Impress3 Media/Hoodline Country: USA Sector: Media/entertainment/sports/arts Purpose: Generate news articles Technology: Generative AI; Machine learning Issue: Ethics/values; Transparency

Date it happened
2024-05-01
Organisation involved
Impress3 Media/Hoodline
Where this came from
Share this incident
XLinkedInFacebookWhatsAppEmail
Attribution

This incident was imported from AIAAIC and is used under CC BY-SA 4.0. Our additions to it — the structured fields, the translation, the checks against other reports — are published under the same licence.

This is a record of what was reported, not a finding that anyone broke the law. If it names your organisation and you believe it is wrong, the corrections process is free and open to everyone.