Parent did not say they should understand ML on a fundamental level. Reading the description in the comment should be enough for the author of the article to say "oh" and not write this article.

...because the editor understood he misunderstood how the algorithm works? Or becuase they don't know so they shouldn't risk signing off on it?

Sorry I don't see how you could possible challenge this article without a deeper understanding of the technology. That is the fundamental critique here is it not?

Expecting every newspaper to have those domain experts on hand for each topic is naive and highly optimistic. The journalism world doesn't work that way for better or worse.

If it did we would have 50%+ articles never written. Probably more.

> If it did we would have 50%+ articles never written. Probably more.

Doesn't sound like a very bad outcome honestly.

"The flip side of that is that it closes the valves of one's attention"

- from the movie Tar

> Editors of newspapers are supposed to know how AI models work?

Editors of newsmagazines are supposed to know how journalism works, and to probe journalists to assure that they’ve done the research to properly understand and represent the subjects of their stories. So, yes, when publishing a story about AI models, the editor should know enough about how AI models work to understand that the story is a proper representation, not in advance of seeing the story, but as a result of the dialogue with the reporter on the research that the reporter has done before the editor signs off on the story.