AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time

What if the AI makes an interesting or important article sound like one you don't want to read? You'd never cross check the fact, and you'd never discover how wrong the AI was.

Integrity of words and author intent is important. I understand the intent of your hypothetical but I haven’t run into this issue in practice with Kagi News.

Never share information about an article you have not read. Likewise, never draw definitive conclusions from an article that is not of interest.

If you do not find a headline interesting, the take away is that you did not find the headline interesting. Nothing more, nothing less. You should read the key insights before dismissing an article entirely.

I can imagine AI summarizes being problematic for a class of people that do not cross check if an article is of value to them.

That's fair, but i also don't cross check news sources on average either. I should, but there in lies the real problem imo. Information is war these days, and we've not yet developed tools for wading through immense piles of subtly inaccurate or biased data.

We're in a weird time. It's always been like this, it's just much.. more, now. I'm not sure how we'll adapt.

There is more written material produced every hour than I could read in a lifetime, I am going to miss 99.9999% of everything no matter what I do. It's not like the headline+blurb you usually get is any better in this regard.

> I can imagine AI summarizes being problematic for a class of people that do not cross check if an article is of value to them.

I feel like that’s “the majority of people” or at least “a large enough group for it to be a societal problem”.

> Information is war these days

I don't know If i can agree with that. I think we make an error when we aggregate news in the way we do. We claim that "the right wing media" says something when a single outlet associated with the right says a thing, and vice versa. That's not how I enjoy reading the news. I have a couple of newspapers I like reading, and I follow the arguments they make. I don't agree with what they say half the time, but I enjoy their perspective. I get a sense of the "editorial personality" of the paper. When we aggregate the news, we don't get that sense, because there's no editorial. I think that makes the news poorer, and I think it makes people's views of what newspapers can be poorer.

The news shouldn't a stream of happenings. The newspaper is best when it's a coherent day-to-day conversation. Like a pen-pal you don't respond to.