In the sense that the article initially failed to disclose it (because it was apparently a repackaged transcript from an audio episode that DID disclose it, without that disclosure making into this piece), and then the article was updated to disclose it without disclosing the update.
i'm seeing several people make this claim so now i'm wondering if maybe there was an earlier version that didn't mention it? they couldn't have all just missed it right?
Pretty absurd imo to have tech columnists with such glaring conflicts writing about how “AI is here to stay” not bc it’s being thrust upon us by monopolistic corporations but bc it’s “so darn useful!”
Yeah, they give that disclaimer at the start of every episode that touches on AI (which is most episodes). I disagree with a lot about what both Kevin and Casey say about AI (though I listen bc they're generally smart, good faith arguers) but the "non-disclosure of conflicts" attack is just not true
It should have been in the printed version that they were socialing, and the fact that the piece was updated to add that disclosure should also have been disclosed!
Comments
https://bsky.app/profile/joocifer.bsky.social/post/3lgycbpgvdk2x