[The Editors' Verdict] A Pen in One Hand, AI in the Other

Among this year’s Pulitzer Prize-winning works, two articles utilized artificial intelligence (AI). Machine learning models were employed during the data analysis process. The New York Times article, “The Secrets Hamas Knew About Israel’s Military,” used an AI tool to identify bombs, exposing the use of explosives in the Gaza Strip, designated as a civilian protection zone. The Invisible Institute received an award for the article “Missing in Chicago,” which visualized police incompetence and corruption regarding missing persons and murder cases in Chicago with the help of machine learning.

In the discourse area called “AI journalism,” the claim that “AI can replace journalists” always draws attention. On the 15th, John Ridding, CEO of the Financial Times (FT) Group, gave a special lecture at the “Korea Press Foundation Journalism Conference” held at the Korea Press Center. The topic was “Journalism in the AI Era ? AI and Media Innovation.” Ridding said, “More opportunities will be given to media companies that properly utilize AI.” The FT, which actively uses AI, has secured the largest number of paid subscribers in its 135-year history. He cited FT’s investigative report on Ukrainian children as a successful example of AI utilization. Using AI facial recognition technology, they confirmed that missing Ukrainian children appeared on Russian adoption websites.

Image generated with DALL·E 3

The media always criticizes the “lack of innovation” in other fields, but looking back at the history of journalism is somewhat embarrassing. At one time, reporters wrote manuscripts by hand. The typesetter who received the manuscript would fit each type piece into a plate, ink it, and print it. In the Western world, typewriters were invented in the late 19th century and began to be introduced in newspapers. Criticism poured in, saying “the artistic nature of writing will disappear” and “the human touch will be lost.” However, typewriters greatly improved newspaper production speed. In the early 20th century, photojournalism emerged. Critics said, “Photos with too strong visual elements undermine the seriousness of journalism.” Television also had a difficult early period. It was said that “television news, focused on visual information, simplifies the complexity of events” and “sensational reporting that attracts viewers’ attention increases compared to in-depth and analytical articles.” Yet, a single photograph or a few seconds of video illuminated the history of journalism, and such criticisms collapsed without resistance.

The Pulitzer Prize Board, after discussing AI-related policies, decided not to restrict AI usage going forward. Initially, there was strong resistance to AI within the board. After heated debate, they concluded that “better articles can be written by utilizing AI.” The board viewed that “if AI is fundamentally banned, newsrooms will be hindered from adopting innovative technologies.”

The University of Hong Kong lifted its ban on generative AI tools like ChatGPT last August. They reasoned that banning AI would not catch those secretly using AI and would instead isolate students from AI trends. “We want our students to be pioneers and leaders in generative AI,” they said. Just as calculators were accepted in educational settings, more discussion is needed on how to embrace AI. Can journalism be much different? Perhaps we should not let go of the pen in one hand while holding AI in the other.