To be clear, Emergent Mind isn't writing actual news articles. At least not yet :).

When a link is shared on the site either by Emma (a bot) or a human, Emergent Mind uses GPT to automatically write a short summary of the article's content and explain key terms used in the article. I don't proofread those summaries or key terms before they're posted, but do occasionally edit them if something is glaringly wrong - which thankfully isn't common.

How do you know when to edit something gloriously wrong if you don’t proofread them?

I use Emergent Mind throughout the day to stay informed about AI news, so sometimes notice issues while I'm reading the site. I was just saying that I don't proofread any summaries before Emma writes them, nor do I feel like I have to verify everything. Mistakes in the summaries and key terms are few and far between.

Yes, by article I meant that summary and key terms, mostly the summary. Somehow, I just don't have much luck with it, I once asked ChatGPT to give me a summary of a book which I have read, and it provided 5 points, which is correct since the book indeed has 5 main principles (it was Getting things done book), but 2 out of 5 were just incorrect. So in my opinion, the correct workflow would be that AI will generate the summary, or several summaries, and then a human will read the original article and use those generated summaries as a template to write it himself. Otherwise, you could just unintentionally mislead people. With that being said, I actually like what you come up with so far.

Or, you know, being 2023, you can ask GPT to do a better job. So in the first step you generate a summary with GPT as usual, and in the second step it gets analysed by GPT and a new summary is written. You can declare your criteria for what makes a good summary in the second step.