Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Monica LaBelle's avatar

I appreciate the transparency around this experiment and the technical achievement of producing a newsletter at this level with minimal human intervention. That said, I am struggling to see the value-add. Strong aggregation and synthesis formats already exist. What I look to independent journalism for is not summary, but framing, judgment, and perspective that expand how I understand an issue. This seems more like a closed loop of elite Washington outlets synthesizing one another than a widening of the aperture.

Relatedly, placing WaPo, NYT, Politico, Bloomberg, Guardian, and ABC News on the same plane is itself an editorial decision. These institutions operate under different ownership structures, incentives, and cultures. If the aim is to explore alternatives to “corporate journalism,” then the choice and treatment of inputs warrants more scrutiny. Using WaPo uncritically, particularly in the current moment, feels unexamined at the least.

On a smaller but telling note, I was unsure whether “The Lead” was meant as a play on “lede.” If so, it does not quite land; if not, it reads as vague. Similarly, “Palette Cleanse” suggests either an unintended homonym or wordplay that does not fully work. In an experiment centered on editorial precision and the future of language, those details stand out.

More broadly, the experiment gestures toward a thoughtful argument about the utility and potential of AI in journalism, but it demonstrates rather than truly unpacks that argument. The result feels technically impressive yet conceptually shallow. I am less interested in whether AI can assemble a newsletter than in how it might alter editorial judgment, expand perspective, or reshape what counts as news. That is where the real question lies.

Laura Skov's avatar

Interesting experiment, although I loathe AI. Gold price is wrong: Spot gold breached $5,400/oz on 1/29. Whip the robot.

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?