Judging by the amount of insider interviews it's more than just ads.
Longtime subscriber. Pretty disappointed in how biased their coverage is.
The most critical piece they have put out on AI is oh no it's so powerful it's hacking everything. It's like being in a job interview and saying your biggest weakness is you work too hard.
>Longtime subscriber. Pretty disappointed in how biased their coverage is.
>The most critical piece they have put out on AI is oh no it's so powerful it's hacking everything. It's like being in a job interview and saying your biggest weakness is you work too hard.
What do you think they've missed? Otherwise, all you've demonstrated so far is "their stance on AI doesn't match mine", not that they're "biased". If I was reading HN 5 years ago it would be people saying how economist is biased for or against crypto because the most critical/supportive piece doesn't say it'll go to 0, or will replace all of finance, respectively.
But, for me it's not so much that it doesn't match my view. I'm honestly mixed on the whole thing (I am probably most concerned about the finances). It's more that the articles they write seem to align with the eb and flow of anthropics media tempo. This week it's FOMO, next week it's panacea, hack all the things week, followed by mild financial concerns with a but it will be fine tacked at the end. The articles tend to lack concreteness too. Maybe, it's just what reading The Economist is like when it's a domain you actually understand and follow closely?
Honestly, though I could probably say the same for a lot of publications these days.
Longtime subscriber. Pretty disappointed in how biased their coverage is.
The most critical piece they have put out on AI is oh no it's so powerful it's hacking everything. It's like being in a job interview and saying your biggest weakness is you work too hard.