Dylan: Is Nick Lichtenberg the future of journalism? In other words, are we still in the “power tool” phase, where A.I. is essentially a productivity enhancer, or are we already staring down the barrel of a full-stack disruption of reporting and writing, itself?
Ian: It sort of depends on the business model. For the top writers, we’re nowhere near the point where the content is better. The Lichtenberg approach is much more radical than how tech journalists like Alex Heath and Casey Newton are reportedly using A.I. to help with transcriptions, research, and even drafting copy—you know, the standard-ish optimizations. For media companies that rely on traffic—clicks and page views, etcetera—there will be a real temptation, maybe even a business necessity, to optimize for higher revenue and lower costs. After all, A.I. is almost the perfect tool to feed that impulse for more, faster, cheaper, and hookier content. I don’t think it’s crazy to imagine a world where A.I. incentivizes some startups or diminished legacy brands to take another shot at the content-farm model, even if it depletes user trust.
Dylan: So is the real story here about individual journalists experimenting with A.I. to give themselves more leverage, or institutions quietly redesigning their workflows to lower costs?
