> 1. I don't care. People lose jobs from technological progress, they've been able to see the writing on the wall for a while, and it's still not even a done deal, so frankly if journalists aren't figuring out how to get paid now, it's kind of on them. If their answer to how do I get paid is lawsuits, they deserve the suffering they're going to get.
I got it from your original post: you don't give a shit. I was just calling you out on it. At least you own it.
> 2. Open source data sets can have curation too, this seems like a silly strawman to make.
It's not a strawman, but "curated open source data sets" are a red herring: those data sets are not what is going to be controlling the online experience of the vast majority of those online.
Why should I care about journalists vs anyone else? The pain that journalists suffer will be outweighed by the benefit to society of the tools - assuming people like you don't throw up their hands in defeat and choose to give all their power away to soulless megacorps when choosing which AI tools to use.
News is going to break, and people who break it accurately with personality and a unique take are going to do well regardless if whether newspapers and other bastions of old world journalism continue to exist.
I got it from your original post: you don't give a shit. I was just calling you out on it. At least you own it.
> 2. Open source data sets can have curation too, this seems like a silly strawman to make.
It's not a strawman, but "curated open source data sets" are a red herring: those data sets are not what is going to be controlling the online experience of the vast majority of those online.