 |
|
|
|||||
As AI car crashes go, the recent publishing of a hallucinated book list in the Chicago Sun-Times quickly became a multi-vehicle pile-up. After a writer used AI to create a list of summer reads, the majority of which were made-up titles, the resulting article sailed through lax editorial review at the Sun-Times (and at least one other newspaper) and ended up being distributed to thousands of subscribers. The CEO eventually published a lengthy apology. The most obvious takeaway from the incident is that it was a badly needed wake-up call about what can happen when AI gets too embedded in our information ecosystem. But CEO Melissa Bell resisted the instinct to simply blame AI, instead putting responsibility on the humans who use it and those who are entrusted with safeguarding readers from its weaknesses. She even included herself as one of those people, explaining how she had approved the publishing of special inserts like the one the list appeared in, assuming at the time there would be adequate editorial review (there wasn’t). The company has made changes to patch this particular hole, but the affair exposes a gap in the media landscape that is poised to get worse: as the presence of AI-generated contentauthorized or notincreases in the world, the need for editorial safeguards also increases. And given the state of the media industry and its continual push to do “more with less,” it’s unlikely that human labor will scale up to meet the challenge. The conclusion: AI will need to fact-check AI. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/mediacopilot-logo-ss.png","headline":"Media CoPilot","description":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com","substackDomain":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}} Fact-checking the fact-checker I know, it sounds like a horrible idea, somewhere between letting the fox watch the henhouse or sending Imperial Stormtroopers to keep the peace on Endor. But AI fact-checking isn’t a new idea: In fact, when Google Gemini first debuted (then called Bard), it shipped with an optional fact-check step if you wanted it to double-check anything it was telling you. Eventually, this kind of step simply became integrated into how AI search engines work, broadly making their results better, though still far from perfect. Newsrooms, of course, set a higher bar, and they should. Operating a news site comes with the responsibility to ensure the stories you’re telling are true, and for most sites the shrugging disclaimer of “AI can make mistakes,” while good enough for ChatGPT, doesn’t cut it. That’s why for most, if not all, AI-generated outputs (such as ESPN’s AI-written sports recaps), humans check the work. As AI writing proliferates, though, the inevitable question is: Can AI do that job? Put aside the weirdness for a minute and see it as math, the key number being how often it gets things wrong. If an AI fact-checker can reduce the number of errors by as much if not more than a human, shouldn’t it do that job? If you’ve never used AI to fact-check something, the recently launched service isitcap.com offers a glimpse at where the technology stands. It doesnt just label claims as true or falseit evaluates the article holistically, weighing context, credibility, and bias. It even compares multiple AI search engines to cross-check itself. You can easily imagine a newsroom workflow that applies an AI fact-checker similarly, sending its analysis back to the writer, highlighting the bits that need shoring up. And if the writer happens to be a machine, revisions could be done lightning fast, and at scale. Stories could go back and forth until they reach a certain accuracy threshold, with anything that falls short held for human review. All this makes sense in theory, and it could even be applied to what news orgs are doing currently with AI summaries. Nieman Lab has an excellent write-up on how The Wall Street Journal, Yahoo News, and Bloomberg all use AI to generate bullet points or top-line takeaways for their journalism. For both Yahoo and the Journal, there’s some level of human review on the summaries (for Bloomberg, it’s unclear from the article). These organizations are already on the edge of whats acceptablebalancing speed and scale with credibility. One mistake in a summary might not seem like much, but when trust is already fraying, its enough to shake confidence in the entire approach. Human review helps ensure accuracy, of course, but also requires more human laborsomething in short supply in newsrooms that don’t have a national footprint. AI fact-checking could give smaller outlets more options with respect to public-facing AI content. Similarly, Politico’s union recently criticized the publication’s AI-written reports for subscribers based on the work of its journalists, because of occasional inaccuracies. A fact-checking layer might prevent at least some embarrassing mistakes, like attributing political stances to groups that don’t exist. The AI trust problem that wont go away Using AI to fight AI hallucination might make mathematical sense if it can prevent serious errors, but there’s another problem that stems from relying even more on machines, and it’s not just a metallic flavor of irony. The use of AI in media already has a trust problem. The Sun-Times‘ phantom book list is far from the first AI content scandal, and it certainly won’t be the last. Some publications are even adopting anti-AI policies, forbidding its use for virtually anything./p> Because of AI’s well-documented problems, public tolerance for machine error is lower than for human error. Similarly, if a self-driving car gets into an accident, the scrutiny is obviously much greater than if the car was driven by a person. You might call this the automation fallout bias, and whether you think it’s fair or not, it’s undoubtedly true. A single high-profile hallucination that slips through the cracks could derail adoption, even if it might be statistically rare. Add to that what would probably be painful compute costs for multiple layers of AI writing and fact-checking, not to mention the increased carbon footprint. All to improve AI-generated textwhich, lets be clear, is not the investigative, source-driven journalism that still requires human rigor and judgment. Yes, we’d be lightening the cognitive load for editors, but would it be worth the cost? Despite all these barriers, it seems inevitable that we will use AI to check AI outputs. All indications point to hallucinations being inherent to generative technology. In fact, newer “thinking” models appear to hallucinate even more than their less sophisticated predecessors. If done right, AI fact-checking would be more than a newsroom tool, becoming part of the infrastructure for the web. The question is whether we can build it to earn trust, not just automate it. The amount of AI content in the world can only increase, and we’re going to need systems that can scale to keep up. AI fact-checkers can be part of that solution, but only if we manageand accepttheir potential to make errors themselves. We may not yet trust AI to tell the truth, but at least it can catch itself in a lie. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/mediacopilot-logo-ss.png","headline":"Media CoPilot","description":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com","substackDomain":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
California’s top insurance regulator on Thursday launched an investigation into State Farm over the company’s handling of claims from the January Los Angeles-area wildfires.The investigation comes after survivors of the Palisades and Eaton fires said that the state’s largest home insurer was delaying and mishandling claims regarding damage to their homes and possible contamination from smoke.The blazes destroyed thousands of buildings around Los Angeles, killed 30 people and displaced thousands of others. They were estimated to be among the costliest natural disasters in U.S. history.California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said the investigation will review whether the company complied with state consumer protection and claim-handling laws.“Californians deserve fair and comprehensive treatment from their insurance companies,” the Democrat said in a statement. “No one should be left in uncertainty, forced to fight for what they are owed, or face endless delays that often lead consumers to give up.”State Farm, which has about 1 million home insurance customers in California, said it will cooperate with the state’s review. The insurer has received roughly 13,000 claims related to the fires and has paid out about $4 billion to customers, the company said.“We’re here to help our customers recover and we empathize with those who are rebuilding their lives,” State Farm said in a statement. “Our focus continues to be on supporting our customers in their recovery from the largest fire event we have ever experienced.”Survivors of the Eaton fire in Altadena have raised concerns about possible lead, asbestos and heavy metal contamination in their homes because of smoke.State Sen. Sasha Ren�e P�rez, a Democrat representing Pasadena, in April called on Lara to launch a probe into the alleged mishandling of claims.“The survivors of the Los Angeles County fires are experiencing financial and emotional hardships due to State Farm’s delays and denials of their valid insurance claims,” she and other lawmakers said at the time. “Despite years of faithfully paying premiums, they have been met with excessive documentation demands, denial of claims despite clear evidence, a convoluted and arduous claims process, and silence when seeking help after the disaster.”Lara said homeowners should file formal complaints regarding State Farm’s handling of claims to help the state take action. The Department of Insurance announced a task force last month to recommend best practices for addressing smoke damage.A wildfire victims advocate praised the investigation as a “critical step toward accountability.”“State Farm is unjustly denying legitimate smoke damage claims, forcing families already harmed by the Eaton and Palisades fires to make the impossible choice of living in toxic homes or paying tens of thousands out of pocket for remediation. We stand ready to hold State Farm accountable,” Kiley Grombacher, co-founder of the California Fire Victims Law Center, said in a statement.Insurers including State Farm had difficulty doing business in California even before the wildfires. In 2023, State Farm and others stopped issuing residential policies because of the wildfire risk.Last year, Lara unveiled regulations aimed at giving insurers more latitude to raise premiums in exchange for more policies in high-risk areas. State Farm said at the time the company was struggling.The wildfires, which destroyed more than 16,000 buildings, made matters even worse.In May, state regulators allowed State Farm to raise premiums 17% statewide for its California home insurance customers to help the company rebuild its capital after the costly wildfires.State Farm initially sought a 22% rate increase for homeowners but revised it down a recent hearing before an administrative judge. The new rates in effect this month include a 38% hike for rental owners and 15% for tenants.People who lost homes in the fires sued in April, alleging State Farm and other insurers colluded to “suddenly and simultaneously” drop coverage or halt writing new policies in fire-prone areas, including areas that burned. That left the homeowners underinsured and struggling to rebuild, the lawsuit alleges.The American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the largest national trade association representing home, auto and business insurers, called the lawsuits meritless, saying it monitors to ensure its members comply with the state’s antitrust laws. Associated Press writer Mead Gruver reported from Cheyenne, Wyoming. Austin is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Austin on X: @sophieadanna Sophie Austin and Mead Gruver, Associated Press/Report for America
Category:
E-Commerce
One of the biggest names in charging is the subject of a major new safety recall. Anker, which makes portable battery packs for mobile devices, is recalling 1.16 million chargers over concerns that their lithium ion batteries could overheat, causing burns or posing a fire risk. The recall specifically names Ankers PowerCore 10000 power banks with model number A1263, which consumers can find printed on the bottom of the devices. The recall only affects power banks sold in the U.S., and concerned customers can check their Anker products against the companys recall info page. The risk from the recalled devices isnt just hypothetical. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that Anker has documented 19 cases of fires and explosions related to the now-recalled power banks, including two minor burn injuries and 11 instances of property damage totaling more than $60,700. What to do if you own an affected charger Anyone with a portable charger affected by the recall can submit a claim with Anker in order to receive a replacement device or a gift card. If youve got a recalled device and arent sure what to do with it, dont throw it, or any other lithium ion battery, in the garbage can, as careless disposal of electronics can pose a real fire risk. Anker encourages its customers to check their citys specific recommendations for household hazardous waste collection to safely dispose of the potentially dangerous devices.
Category:
E-Commerce
Tensions in the Middle East reached a critical point last night as Israel launched an offensive strike targeting Irans nuclear facilities and military installations. Iran responded swiftly, raising fears that the two nationsand possibly the wider regionare on the brink of full-scale war. In the immediate aftermath, airlines across the globe scrambled to reroute or cancel flights, clearing airspace over Israel, Iran, and neighboring countries. If youre scheduled to travel to, from, or through the region, heres what you need to know. Israeli, Iranian, Jordanian, and Iraqi airspace cleared within hours Within hours of Israel launching its offensive, airlines quickly cleared Israeli, Iranian, Jordanian, and Iraqi airspace. The move is a preemptive one meant to ensure that commercial airliners are not inadvertently struck by missiles or other weapons launched between the countries. As you can see from the embedded FlightRadar24 flight tracker below, shortly after 11:30 p.m. UTC last night, commercial aircraft began being diverted from the affected airspace. By 2 a.m. UTC this morning, nearly all commercial aircraft had been redirected. 9-second video of the clearing of Iranian and Iraqi airspace. pic.twitter.com/VZLWbmk9sC— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) June 13, 2025 Israels Ben Gurion Airport closed Israels main international airport, Ben Gurion Airport (TLV), which is located 12 miles southeast of Tel Aviv, was quickly closed, according to a report from the Times of Israel. According to a pop-up notice on the airports website, all flights to and from the airport are canceled until further notice. Due to the current special security situation, all flights to and from Ben Gurion Airport (LLBG) are canceled until further notice, the notice reads. Please be advised: Do not travel to the airport. CNN reports that other airports in the region also remain closed, including Tehrans Mehrabad Airport and Ammans Queen Alia International Airport. Flights from the U.S. affected, too While the conflict is in the Middle East, it has affected flights operated by U.S.-based airlines. As CNBC notes, Delta and United have canceled flights to Tel Aviv through at least Saturday. Flights that were already in the air when the conflict broke out reportedly turned around to the New York area. Delta Airlines has posted a travel advisory related to the unrest, in which the airline warns that travel to, from, or through Tel Aviv, Israel (TLV) may be impacted if the flight is scheduled from now until June 30, 2025. The company has listed the options ticket holders have to rebook their affected flights. What should I do if I have a flight booked? If you have a flight booked that is scheduled to depart to or from, or travese through, the Middle East areaparticularily the countries of Israel, Iran, Iraq, and Jordanyou shoiuld check with your airline directly to see whether the flight is still operating, has been altered or rescheduled, or has been canceled. Travelers should also enable notifications from the airlines apps to ensure they receive the latest updates to any affected flights in a timely manner.
Category:
E-Commerce
One of the worst mistakes I ever made applying for a job was ignoring red flags during the job interview process. Looking back, there were several things that made me uneasy. But I was enamored with how the company described its culture, the people, and the role, and so I ignored them. As it turned out, all of those things were poorly defined or a far cry from what was promised. I had left a toxic work environment only to end up in an equally bad situation. Sometimes, as job seekers, were so desperate to escape our current situations that we forget job interviews are a two-way street. We overfocus on performing well during interviews and forget to ask questions about the company or role (or ask only surface-level questions). {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/04\/workbetter-logo.png","headline":"Work Better","description":"Thoughts on the future of work, career pivots, and why work shouldn't suck, by Anna Burgess Yang. To learn more visit workbetter.media.","substackDomain":"https:\/\/www.workbetter.media","colorTheme":"salmon","redirectUrl":""}} But the more you can try to suss out during the interview process, the better shape youll be in when deciding whether or not to accept or decline an offer. Here are some best practices. Red flags Some companies are not great at writing job descriptionsor theyll write perfect versions of a role that dont reflect reality. When youre talking to the hiring manager, ask about day-to-day responsibilities. The manager should have a crystal clear idea of what youre expected to do, even if the description is, You will wear a lot of hats. Ive worked for many small companies where I was expected to adjust to an ever-changing role. That can be fine, as long as you know upfront and your performance is evaluated accordingly. If the company only has a vague idea of what it needs from the role, odds are it won’t be possible for you to meet expectations. Its also a red flag if the company asks you to put a significant amount of work into the interview process. During the first interview, you should ask how many additional interviews you can expect. Three half-hour interviews total? Probably fine. Five hour-long interviews, plus a lengthy, unpaid test assignment? That company doesnt value your time, has trouble making decisions, or both. What to ask the interviewer Youll want to ask for details about the team structure and the type of work youll be doing. These basic questions will help you determine if its a job youd enjoy. But a few probing questions can help you learn more about the company itself. Why is this role open? Is the company in growth mode and needs to add to the team? Did the prior person leave because they accepted their dream job? Or has the company experienced a lot of turnover? How flexible is the work environment? If flexibility is important to you, youll want to ask the right questions. Some companies claim to be flexible when, in reality, they aren’t. A good question to ask is whether people work synchronously or asynchronously. If people work synchronously, the company is probably less flexible. You can also ask how many meetings you can expect per week, which will impact your flexibility. How is feedback given? This ties into how well the role is defined. Does the company have a formal review process? If so, how often? You want to make sure you can meet expectations, even if expectations are ever-changing at a small company. Dont end up in the same bad job situation Companies will likely look at your LinkedIn profile and ask for references, trying to determine what kind of an employee you are. You should do the same. Check Glassdoor, but read reviews with a grain of salt. Employees of small companies may be afraid to leave reviews, and sometimes reviews are skewed toward employees who had negative experiences. You can also check LinkedIn. Find former employees and look at how long they were with the company. One employee with a short tenure doesnt say much, but lots of turnover is a red flag. If youre comfortable, you could even send a DM to a former employee and ask about their experience. As a job seeker, its your version of checking references. Above all, dont ignore your gut. If you get a bad vibe during the interview, it will probably be magnified once youre hired. Unless youre desperate for a new role, its better to keep looking than to end up in a job you regret. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/04\/workbetter-logo.png","headline":"Work Better","description":"Thoughts on the future of work, career pivots, and why work shouldn't suck, by Anna Burgess Yang. To learn more visit workbetter.media.","substackDomain":"https:\/\/www.workbetter.media","colorTheme":"salmon","redirectUrl":""}} Anna Burgess Yang
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] next »