Headline writers are all puppy-kickers

And by puppy-kickers, I mean people who metaphorically “kick” the truth (or puppy, if you will) to the main article while making the headline as eye-popping as possible.

And so the world turns, and I complain about headline writers distorting the truth. Whatever was in my drinking water from my last post focusing on the positives of AI coverage has clearly dissipated.

Anyway, this was brought on by a link sent to me by another friend about a class being taught right here at CMU..

The main text of the article is actually pretty reasonable. They interview a CMU professor Fei Fang about her course this semester: “Artificial Intelligence for Social Good.” It’s basically what it sounds like, looking at ML and AI applications to things such as like stopping poachers, poverty, and hunger, etc. It’s a nice little article with an actual interview with Fang (as far as I can tell anyway).

But, nice little stories don’t get you clicks. So of course, the headline is “You Can Now Take A Class On How To Make AI That Isn’t Evil.” Subtle.

The article itself does not mention evil, or bad AI’s or really do anything to justify this headline. Based on how online journalism works, I am fairly confident that the author of the article didn’t even write that headline. I feel bad for him, honestly.

Anyway, I’m going to try to keep making regular posts, but grad school is in fact quite a lot of work. We’ll have to see. But if any readers of this blog have suggestions for future posts, please let me know.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *