The Onion has an AI policy.

[mae@is.badat.dev]

@jalefkowit ok but the onion should write a secondary funny AI policy because it'd be funny

[vrek@mastodon.social]

@Di7life @jalefkowit trust and integrity you can believe in although not generally recommended to do so

[miamarktwo@syzito.xyz]

@jalefkowit "... our audience, whom we reluctantly acknowledge"

[noodlemaz@mstdn.games]

@jalefkowit and this is one of the reasons we love them

[noodlemaz@mstdn.games]

@Rana @jalefkowit some company giving you the option to use a thing doesn't mean you have to use the thing.
Mods have disabled it in the back end for a publication I volunteer with so I don't even have to look at the AI buttons.

Better than being on Substack.

[noodlemaz@mstdn.games]

@stardust @jalefkowit it can be, but it's not definitionally? I guess not all writing is creative writing, but it is fundamental to their existence. Code much less so.

[millardphillmore@mastodon.social]

@jalefkowit makes my subscription to the print version even more worth it. Highly recommend 10 out of 10

[senil@gts.social.senil.me]

@zimmatore @jalefkowit The Onion wouldn't dare to stoop so low for their new venture. You're never going to get the quality of satire you'd need for that with an LLM.

[lumi@snug.moe]

@jalefkowit i wish that policies like this included "code", to be more holistic and give a nod to that genai is not okay for anything

i hate hearing the sentiment that it's fine for code

[lxskllr@mastodon.world]

@lumi @jalefkowit

Programming is out of scope for a "newspaper". A policy stating objects/activities the company doesn't engage in is just soapboxing. That's what articles are for, not policy pages.

[cthw@mstdn.ca]

@jalefkowit

Except as the object of gags or posts …

[wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org]

@fiigvam @Crow @jalefkowit It is the bare minimum because anything less than this is unacceptable. But we are cheering and applauding: that's what "hell yeah" is. (Because, as you say, this is a too-rare decision these days.)

[wizzwizz4@fosstodon.org]

@jalefkowit So, what I'm hearing is, The Onion is a source of high-quality, up-to-date training data, which will make my AI smarterer without risk of model collapse by teaching it many facts.

[theonedoc@tech.lgbt]

@jalefkowit I only doslike that they limit it to "creative".

That garbage needs to be banned IN ALL roles.

[clintonanderson@universeodon.com]

@jalefkowit

#FuckAI

[david_chisnall@infosec.exchange]

@jalefkowit I don't really like this because 'an existential threat to the livelihood of creative professionals' can be read to mean that bullshit generators could actually substitute for the writers of The Onion. I'd much rather that they either omitted this part or explained it in a way that doesn't make that implication.

[johnniemac@mastodon.scot]

@jalefkowit unless it is also satire…

[lumi@snug.moe]

@lxskllr @jalefkowit i disagree, it still makes a statement that genai is not ok for code

[solitha@mastodon.social]

@Em0nM4stodon Yeah I'd much rather be reluctantly acknowledged by companies with principles like this, than all the alternatives we currently face.

@jalefkowit

[farooqkz@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@jalefkowit

Well actually if a human can be replaced by AI, this probably means the human hasn't got a valuable skill.

I can say no AI can replace me to write the code I write, the blog posts I write, and the books I'm going to write.

This also true about many artists.

However, not many understand value of a good writing/art/code/video. Fewer who can tell if it's a good and creative one by looking at it.

So this is the real problem not just AI. But also the people who don't understand.