AI-Generated Headlines: A Disturbing Trend in News Reporting
The advent of artificial intelligence has led to bizarre transformations in news headlines. Recent examples include sensational claims such as “BG3 players exploit children” and “Qi2 slows older Pixels”.
If these misleading titles were our own, we would undoubtedly face backlash from our readership. Strikingly, Google is experimenting with replacing original headlines with AI-generated alternatives, often devoid of coherent context.
My nightly news consumption typically occurs through Google Discover—accessible via a simple swipe on devices like the Samsung Galaxy or Google Pixel. It is within this interface that erroneous AI-generated headlines are beginning to proliferate.
There are instances where the modifications are benign, with straightforward headlines such as “Origami model wins prize” and “Hyundai, Kia gain share”, albeit lacking the intrigue of their original counterparts.
For example, the original headline regarding Hyundai and Kia’s remarkable market performance conveyed a story worth exploring (“Hyundai and Kia are outpacing competitors, achieving a new U.S. market share record”).
Similarly, a young innovator’s triumph in origami (“14-year-old wins award for origami capable of supporting 10,000 times its weight”) captures genuine interest.
However, Google’s inclination to reduce complex stories to mere phrases of four words or fewer poses significant challenges.
This new experimental approach has resulted in many misleading and nonsensical headlines affixed to journalists’ efforts, with scant acknowledgment that Google’s AI is responsible for these alterations.
The first AI-generated headline that caught my attention stated, “Steam Machine price revealed”, a statement that is categorically inaccurate; Valve intends to disclose such details next year.
Ars Technica’s original headline offered a more accurate depiction, stating, “Valve’s Steam Machine resembles a console; however, do not anticipate it being priced competitively.”
In another instance, a headline of “Microsoft developers using AI” emerged, which seems patently obvious.
This line was sourced from a colleague’s article about how Microsoft’s developers are leveraging AI, yet Google stripped away six letters that constituted the essence of the story, transforming a substantive narrative into trivial clickbait.
Moreover, Google’s algorithm suggested “AMD GPU tops Nvidia”, insinuating an announcement of groundbreaking advancements from AMD when, in fact, the actual article from Wccftech merely reported that a single German retailer recorded higher sales of AMD graphics cards than those of Nvidia within a specific week. While Wccftech maintained a responsible headline, Google capitulated to sensationalism.
Some headlines defy comprehension entirely. For instance, what does “Schedule 1 farming backup” mean? Or “AI tag debate heats”? Such examples reveal a misunderstanding only a machine could fabricate—an issue human editors typically circumvent.
To be unequivocal, the matter extends beyond poor AI-generated headlines. It encapsulates an encroachment on our autonomy to represent our narratives. It is akin to publishing a book, only to discover the bookstore has unilaterally altered its cover.
Our endeavor remains to craft headlines that invite readership—ones that encapsulate the significance of a story succinctly while generating genuine enthusiasm.
Yet Google appears prepared to supplant our carefully constructed headlines with versions that could mislead readers into believing we endorse clickbait tactics, particularly when our publication’s name appears adjacent to such headlines.
Google has stated that these news items are “Generated with AI, which can make mistakes,” but lacks specificity in this disclosure. Readers will only encounter this message upon clicking the “See more” button:
This is what Google presents when I tap “see more.”
Such practices invite confusion, leading readers to assume we intentionally submit our stories to Google Discover alongside these headlines.
On a promising note, this development remains an experiment on Google’s part. Should sufficient discontent arise, the company may reconsider its course of action.
A Google spokesperson, Mallory Deleon, informed The Verge that “These screenshots illustrate a minor UI experiment for a limited segment of Discover users.”
The objective is to streamline the presentation of existing headlines to facilitate easier comprehension prior to exploring additional links.
Nevertheless, the overarching trend at Google has increasingly favored its own services, frequently at the expense of driving traffic to news websites.
While Google asserts that it is not undermining the web through AI integration, news organizations largely contest this narrative.
Google has even acknowledged in judicial settings that “the open web is already in rapid decline.”
This reality is a substantial factor behind The Verge establishing a subscription model: survival in an era of Google Zero requires your support.
Source link: Theverge.com.
