The kind of engagement bait shit Futurism pumps out is what AI is best at, and considering the volume of their articles I see posted everyday it wouldn’t surprise me if they were just an AI content farm.
The point of “publications” like these is to generate clicks and sell ads. They don’t care about hypocrisy, just the bottom line.
Probably just good old fashioned human error, in this case. The WSJ really did report on this story, including on the contingency agreement; I’d bet that the Futurism article was mostly written using the WaPo article (which is pretty similar to the WSJ article); but at the last minute, the writer decided they liked the WSJ reporting better and switched the credit without realizing they also needed to switch the link.
Is this article slop? They say “As the Wall Street Journal reported…” and then link to the Washington Post.
It’s all AI slop.
🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀
Futurism’s reporting is anti-AI to a fault (as in making outlandish headlines out of nothing) so that would surprise me.
The kind of engagement bait shit Futurism pumps out is what AI is best at, and considering the volume of their articles I see posted everyday it wouldn’t surprise me if they were just an AI content farm.
The point of “publications” like these is to generate clicks and sell ads. They don’t care about hypocrisy, just the bottom line.
different newspaper frontends for the same propoganda backend maybe?
Probably just good old fashioned human error, in this case. The WSJ really did report on this story, including on the contingency agreement; I’d bet that the Futurism article was mostly written using the WaPo article (which is pretty similar to the WSJ article); but at the last minute, the writer decided they liked the WSJ reporting better and switched the credit without realizing they also needed to switch the link.