zlacker

The people who control institutions seem to care more about fiscal solvenceny of their institutions above all else. Thus, if AI chatbot generated content in media results in more visits to the site and more ad revenue, that's 'good' - the content doesn't need to be accurate or truthful, it just needs to bring in more eyeballs which translates to more ad views which translates to more revenue, which is the metric that the leaders of the institution care most about.

In a more authoritarian state bent on information control, the leaders of the institution might have a different metric, especially if they were a state-funded institution - namely, ensuring that their content didn't offend the heads of the authoritarian state, resulting in either a removal of state funding or a visit from the thought police.

Of course there is some intersectionality here - if the ad revenue is controlled by a few monopolistic corporations, then they might respond to critical investigative reporting on their industry with the removal of their advertising revenue from the media institution. In a monopolistic situation, this might not hurt their own revenue that much as consumers have nowhere else to buy products, but in a competitive market situation, refusing to advertise is likely to result in lower revenue.

For the media institution, generating fluff from a chatbot instructed not to offend either the state or the corporate conglomerate is the safe route when it comes to fiscal solvency (and staying out of prison).

Fundamentally, if the economic system is so corrupt and soul-crushing that the vast majority of people dream of acquiring enough capital to escape the system ('f-u money'), then something is very wrong with that system.