Something funny happened last week in a conversation about whether artificial intelligence could help us produce columns balancing perspectives from the right and left:
A debate broke out about Ohio’s income tax.
And that simple fact tells me the experiment with artificial intelligence was a success.
As a reminder, I wondered in my column last week whether, in this era of diminished newsroom resources, we could use AI as a shortcut in column writing. Could AI speed up the research?
I used the income tax as a topic and asked AI chatbots for short essays arguing to keep it, reduce it or abolish it. Using the essays, along with my years of experience researching and discussing the income tax, I wrote a column explaining as simply as possible the arguments for and against it, along with a possible compromise.
I should have made clear that AI chatbots did not write the column, as some thought. The prose the chatbots churned out was pretty limp, and the essays contained errors. I used AI to quickly gather the arguments, to ensue I did not forget some key point. Using AI probably saved me a couple of hours.
I asked readers whether they thought something like this might work: using AI as a foundation to contrast viewpoints from the left and right, without bombast or outrage. My aim was to get readers’ thoughts on using AI.
Many gave them to me. Some hate the thought of AI bleeding into our platforms, although some misunderstood the experiment, thinking AI did all the work, including the writing. It was just a tool.
Overall, most people were favorable. They thought the elemental breakdown of the debate was helpful and were glad the sample column left out the mean stuff that permeates so many other columns these days.
Others found the tax debate too simplified. They wanted more detail about how the state would function without the tax revenue or more discussion about the many user fees and taxes that exist in states boasting no income tax. They said AI could never give them the depth they desire.
The sample column was, indeed, briefer than it should have been. If it had stood alone as an income tax column, I suspect I would have included more detail. As it was, the sample column was part of a bigger piece, in which I needed to explain the AI experiment, so I kept tax part short.
What tickled me most about the responses I received was the number of people who ignored the artificial intelligence altogether and focused squarely on debating the income tax.
Some like it. Some hate it. Some want to change it. Others want to review the entire Ohio tax structure to reform it, to make it sensible. Several feel more strongly about abolishing municipal income taxes. (In most states, municipal income taxes don’t exist, so why can’t we get by without them in Ohio?)
What does all that mean? Well, a column assisted by artificial intelligence can do what we want columns to do: provoke conversation. The column had enough detail about the pros and cons of state income taxes to spark the imaginations of the readers, who then carried the conversation deeper.
Here’s a smattering of responses:
As for the state income tax, we should keep it. My sister lives in Texas, where, as you point out, there is no state income tax. But she says that the state taxes the living daylights out of everything else to make up for it. We’re going to pay one way or another. But the income tax is much fairer, so I’m in favor of it.
I very much like the compromise of a targeted income tax cut. Personally, I do not mind paying the state income tax. I have long found it to be reasonable,
I never want to see another such piece in the Plain Dealer. It was nothing but generalities and well-known talking points from both sides. It added nothing to my understanding of the issue.
I love it, Chris! With appropriate AI disclaimers, I would definitely read more articles like this one! I’ve genuinely struggled to understand what I’m missing on highly polarized issues. An AI assisted journalist would be able to bring both sides of a polarizing topic into more easily understandable context. And, to be able to offer possible solutions, dare I say compromises, is incredibly helpful. Keep it!
I am writing to say I enjoyed your column about income taxes. I appreciate the neutral stance which seems rare for anything published in the PD… Ultimately, the solution is ensuring we are spending responsibly.
Nice article on the income tax debate in Ohio, especially with the balanced budget focus. Have you looked at an AI analysis of the draconian local/municipal income tax? That would be interesting.
Interesting approach to try to represent two sides of an issue. However, rather than making it shorter, there is a need for more specifics. What does state income tax actually pay for? If we have less government what do we not get? It is pretty clear when people are asked would they pay more tax for a specific item they are in favor of it but probably object to income tax generally.
The article was informative and to the point. Solid non-dramatic information has a place in this world today.
I liked the column..humans were still making sure the information was correctly balanced. I liked that the personalities were left out of it as this is what makes our news very tiresome.
Thank you for responding in the spirit of the experiment I offered. Your thoughts help us as we work out ideas for 2025. We might be on to something with this one.
I’m at cquinn@cleveland.com
Thanks for reading.