No! Comment.

Hello. Welcome to the Weekend Gene Pool. Today we present a new edition of …

… that glorious tabloid rag that regularly delivers deserving comeuppances to The Washington Post for whatever the newspaper’s latest gutless act of nauseatingly corrupted journalism turns out to have been.

On this day, a surprise! In the grand tradition of certain giants of history, persons of extraordinary strength of character who have magnanimously delivered compliments to their nemeses — people such as Abraham Lincoln, who praised the military skill of Robert E. Lee; Winston Churchill, who acknowledged that Adolf Hitler possessed extraordinary leadership skills; and Nelson Mandela, who lauded the humanity of PW Botha, the apartheid leader who let him rot in prison for a decade — we, today, at The Washington Pist, are going to do the same for The Washington Post. We are going to give them a little chuck under the chin, and an “attaboy!”

Please remain calm.

Two weeks ago, The Post rolled out a new format for its online “Comments” function that accompany their stories, claiming that it would provide enhanced and modernized monitoring of reader feedback. The Post called it, with perhaps a wee trace of pomposity, “The Commenting Experience,” as though they were Jimi Hendrix. This was a complex new feature, in which readers are asked to first summarize their reaction to the story, labeling it in one of the four categories The Post authorizes: "Thoughtful," "Provocative," "New to me," and "Clarifying." The Post did not include other options, such as “Awful,” or “Inaccurate,” or “Insipid,” or “Politically Objectionable.”

The public HATED this new rollout, and with a seldom-seen unanimity of virulent opinion. Readers felt condescended to. Readers felt minimalized. Readers felt manipulated.

How do I know these things? Because the new Commenting Experience, trying to be hip and inclusive and transparent, also added a brand new feature: Before you read all the comments, you get to read an AI-generated SUMMARY of the general nature of the comments, as rendered by a machine that, by its very design, has to be blunt, information-driven, fact-based, and definitely not defensively censorious on behalf of its hosts.

So. This enforced honesty did not work out well, for The Post. From the first day, the reader responses to it were hilarious. More than half the responders entirely ignored the story they’d just read, the one upon which they were supposed to be commenting, and responded only about how much they hated the new Commenting Experience.

For example, this was the instant AI summary of reader comments to a straightforward article about how Luigi Mangione had been indicted on charges of first degree murder:

Conversation summary

The comments express dissatisfaction with The Washington Post's article engagement features, particularly the limitation of responses and the perceived ineffectiveness of the feedback buttons. Some readers feel disillusioned and are considering leaving the platform, while others... (etc.)

—

It was disaster. And I instantly felt certain what would happen next, given The Post’s recent run of craven, self-protective decisions, decisions such as not to make a presidential election endorsement, as well as the more recent spineless episode when the editors spiked an embarrassing story about the departure of one of its most beloved and courageous editors for a job at The New York Times.

In short, I felt The Post would kill the messenger: End the AI feature immediately because, although accurate, it had further embarrassed them. It made me think of a certain devastating song by John Wesley Harding. I even downloaded the url in advance for use today, to illustrate what shits the Post managers were about to be. Here it is.

But guess what? As of this writing, the lame new Comments feature is still in place, including the AI summary that remains at the center of it. I do genuinely consider this progress, especially since the AI feature continues to deeply embarrass The Post, in many, many excruciating ways.

Here is the AI summary of a recent op-ed column by Marc Thiessen, the obligatory right-wing Trumpist douchebag whose work the paper’s bosses have decided they have to run so as not to offend right-wing Trumpist douchebag readers. For some reason, on this day, Mr. Thiessen decided to write about the joy of having gone to see ten bands he liked in the past year. Thiessen’s knowledge of pop music seems as thin as a mortician’s smile, but that’s mostly not what readers complained about. They complained about hating his reactionary politics. Here is the Post’s instant AI summary of reactions to that story:

Conversation summary

The comments on the article about Marc Thiessen's favorite concerts in 2024 are overwhelmingly critical and dismissive. Many commenters express disdain for Thiessen's political views and question the relevance of his musical preferences, suggesting that the artists he admires would likely disapprove of his politics. There is little direct engagement with the guiding prompt about favorite concert experiences, as the focus remains on Thiessen’s perceived hypocrisy, and the article’s publication.

—

So, just to be clear, The Washington Pist officially means it when we say to The Washington Post, “good on you.”

—

Now, I know what you are thinking. You are thinking this very column has been a backhanded way to deliver additional grief to Post management for their recent lamentable behavior and terrible decisions, and how they are continuing to show poor judgment about what readers want and need and hate. Furthermore, you are wondering how much longer The Post will keep its AI feature breathing, and whether it’s going to pull the plug anytime soon.

We say, stop being so damn cynical. That will give us the opportunity to be cynical for you.

—

Today’s Challenge from Weekend Gene Pool to you.

What do you think about AI? Good or bad, or good AND bad, with Examples And Opinions And Anecdotes. Be funny, if you can.

As always, send your entries right here, to the suddenly all-vowel EAOAA button.

And lastly, today’s Gene Pool Gene Poll.

-

Thank you. We will see you on Tuesday or before. But before we go, we would like to remind you of the otherworldly benefits of charity. We have it on good authority that 86 percent of people who buy a year’s subscription to The Gene Pool and die before that year is up wind up going to Heaven.

This is Gene, posting 25 minutes after my original post. I just want to say that so far, most of you are voting correctly on the poll. I almost never say that. You are welcome. It is not an easy or self-evident choice.