Haven't you heard? The era of expertise is over! Anyone's opinion is exactly as valuable as anyone else's - in fact, the opinion of someone who is not an expert is _more_ valuable than that of an expert!

That's often true though. One way the media biases articles is by constant reliance on people presented as neutral experts but who don't satisfy the definition used by most people. Normally an expert is defined as someone who displays unusual skill or knowledge within a domain. The media tends to define it very differently, as "someone working for a public sector institution or NGO who claims to be an expert". No actual objective test of expertise is done before presenting that person's views as the final word on a topic and if the views of that person are being challenged by other people who know a lot but aren't institutionally affiliated, then that is just ignored entirely.

Who defines the best? Who defines unbiased?

It all comes down to who you trust.

It takes real judgement and critical thought. It can't be done by algorithm. Sorry I have no easy answer for life.

This is referring to how the open-sourced code provides the freedom for anyone to criticise or correct the way the site works through contribution.

Also, LLMs are biased, but through prompt engineering and other techniques, you can produce neutrally-written text.

I realise now that my messaging with this project is off. What would more accurately explain the purpose of this project is to reduce the effects of sensationalism and indoctrination in the news.

In other words, provide a platform for readers to make up their own opinions on news stories by filtering out the positive/negative language and putting as much focus on facts as possible.

Even if NewsNotFound articles are only 90% neutral, that's 90% BETTER than reading the same story from a sensationalist source.

> through prompt engineering and other techniques, you can produce neutrally-written text

Through thinking and editing, humans can (and often do) produce neutrally written text.

What does AI change? Also, who decides what's neutral? The AI's programmers and operators - humans. Who decides if your AI's output is neutral - you do. Why couldn't you do the same with a human writer?

> Even if NewsNotFound articles are only 90% neutral, that's 90% BETTER than reading the same story from a sensationalist source.

Nothing is 100% sensationalistic. Anyway, I can (and do) find endless non-sensationalistic news.

AI changes nothing; you are an editor (which is a good thing to be - I wish you well).

But the idea that AI is somehow more neutral than humans, or that humans aren't in control here, is very dangerous. That is my concern.