On three separate occasions recently I was involved in conversations about whether advances in artificial intelligence, or AI, is concerning to me as a journalist.

No doubt the question stems from growing interest in new forms of AI known as “Generative AI.” That’s a form of AI now capable of generating text or other content in response to user prompts.

Think of it like this: You know how you engage sometimes in online chats with so-called customer service reps (i.e., computers that issue rapid written responses to your questions based on prompts you’ve typed)? Now, imagine that technology on steroids.

AI is able to read, write and understand text-based data well.

Nevertheless, one communication skill still is lacking.

Despite quickly evolving technology, I believe community journalists (especially those at local newspapers like this one), who spend their time speaking to residents and elected leaders in our local community to obtain their opinions and first-hand knowledge about controversial issues absolutely should not worry that they will be displaced by robots and growing artificial intelligence — at least anytime soon.

Frankly, I have a hard time believing robots soon will be driving around, knocking on doors and gathering first-hand information like our reporters do. I also doubt they will be building trust and cultivating news sources allowing them to keep their fake metal fingers on the pulse of community happenings.

Editors, on the other hand, might be in a different boat — especially those who spend their time reading stories in search of misspellings and poor grammar. Undoubtedly, that can be done by artificial intelligence.

However, those of us who edit and read stories critically, seeking out statements of fact that make no sense or information attributed to incorrect sources might be a little safer — for now.

It’s true that some might argue that formulated writing of things like obituaries or events calendars could be done by AI.

In fact, large innovative newsrooms these days are exploring whether AI technology can assist reporters in doing research or writing. Based on that, I’d argue the journalists who might not survive likely are those who refuse to adapt or who won’t explore how to embrace such tools to enhance their reporting.

I read recently that new teams are being formed within large media companies like BuzzFeed, Forbes and others, that are dedicated to overseeing AI initiatives in departments ranging from editorial to tech.

Some newsrooms are being encouraged to familiarize themselves with generative AI to see if the technology could help them perform their jobs better. Some companies have formalized teams to lead AI-driven experiments and projects.

It’s all very exciting and innovative. But I’d be lying if I didn’t admit it’s also a little frightening.

A recently released Goldman Sachs report estimated that generative AI could expose to automation 300 million full-time jobs around the world if it lives up to its promised capabilities.

The report points out that white-collar workers are some of the most likely to be affected by new AI tools. That’s quite a switch from the loss of many blue-collar workers in past decades, who were replaced by robots added to assembly lines at manufacturing plants.

Now, though, experts predict that some careers most likely to be affected by AI include US legal workers and administrative staff; tech jobs (coders, computer programmers, software engineers, data analysts); and market researchers, because AI is very good at analyzing data and predicting outcomes. Technical writers also might be susceptible because they might not rely as much on first-hand interviews, but more on generating reports after poring through existing data.

While developing AI technology might be picking up pace these days, it has taken a while to get here. Incredibly, it was in the 1980s when my college philosophy class dove into the human challenges that could come with the onset of artificial intelligence. I remember enjoying the debate on this potentially frightening topic, but also thinking to myself that if this ever really did occur, I’d certainly never be around to experience it.

It’s appearing more likely that I will be around. Now I just hope I’ll be one of those learning to embrace it, rather than being displaced by it.

blinert@tribtoday.com