I recently returned from the Mississippi Press Association annual convention. AI was a hot topic of discussion.
In reality, journalists have been using AI for years. First there were spell checkers. Then there were grammar checkers.
For decades, I have been waiting for a way to record a speech and then get a transcript from which I could write my article. I tried every program that came along. None of them worked. But with AI, they work now.
I recently went to the Stennis Press Forum where House Speaker Jason White gave a talk.
I put my Android smartphone on a $20 tripod and recorded his 45-minute talk. I then uploaded it to Vimeo, which compressed the video and produced a full transcript. I then asked Perplexity AI to write a 1,000 word article in Associated Press styled based on the transcript. Within 10 minutes, I had posted the entire speech on the Northside Sun website, with a full transcript and a good summary. Four thousand people either watched the video, read the transcript or read the summary.
No one can accuse me of distorting what White said. The entire transcript and speech was available to read or watch. Since I personally made the recording and reviewed the article, it was original content which I reviewed, edited and authorized.
That’s a good use of AI in journalism. The old way, I would have futilely tried to take notes, gotten many of them garbled and been so busy trying to write down quotes that I would have missed the gist of what White was saying and produced an inferior article.
There is also a bad use of AI in journalism. That’s when you just ask AI to write an article when you didn’t even cover the event or provide the content that is input to the AI.
In other words, AI should be a tool for journalists, not be the journalist.
A few weeks ago, I wrote a column criticizing the Entergy-Amazon deal for its secrecy and potential to greatly increase electricity costs for residential customers.
On the opposite page was a column by Entergy CEO Haley Fisackerly expounding on all the benefits of the deal.
A friend of mine texted: “Are you two writing about the same thing? I don’t know who to believe.”
So I uploaded both columns to ChatGPT and asked it to score the two competing columns like a football game. Here’s the result:
If this were a football game, the score would be:
Wyatt Emmerich 35–Haley Fisackerly 10
Here's the breakdown:
First Quarter: (Clarity and Transparency):
Emmerich scores early by making the key issue—the secrecy of Amazon's electric rate—front and center. Fisackerly punts with vague assurances and no hard numbers. Score: Emmerich 7, Fisackerly 0
Second Quarter: (Ratepayer Impact):
Emmerich drives down the field with estimates of power usage, rate discount implications, and analogies that are easy to understand. Fisackerly mounts a mild defense with platitudes about AWS "sharing the grid," but no clear rebuttal. Score: Emmerich 14, Fisackerly 3
Third Quarter: (Regulatory Oversight):
Emmerich hammers home the legal exemptions in Senate Bill 2001 and how PSC protections were bypassed. Fisackerly tries to claim the PSC still has oversight, but it’s a busted coverage. Score: Emmerich 21, Fisackerly 3
Fourth Quarter: (Economic Logic & Credibility):
Emmerich closes strong by dissecting Entergy’s profit incentives and calling out political theater. Fisackerly's feel-good story about “transforming the grid” doesn’t match the stakes.
Summary: Emmerich brings the receipts and plays smashmouth accountability.
Fisackerly runs a scripted offense, but lacks play-calling creativity when pressed on the hard numbers.
Result: Emmerich dominates with facts, framing, and fiscal focus.
Final Score: Emmerich 35, Fisackerly 10.
I did the same thing with three other major AI platforms. I won on all but Grok, which gave Fisackerly a 9-7 victory.
There is irony here. The main reason for the Amazon data center is AI. And yet I’m using AI constantly in all kinds of innovative ways.
AI is here to stay and it’s going to reap enormous benefits and cause enormous damage, just like the Internet. Like all great transformations, it’s a two-edged sword.
The question is who is going to pay for the enormous electricity costs.?
I would argue that the average residential electricity customer should not pay the cost. It should be borne by the users of the AI through subscription fees. You use it. You pay for it. Forcing residential utility companies to subsidize AI (and monopoly utility companies) through their power bills is wrong. If things don’t change, it will be one of the most massive transfers of wealth in the history of Mississippi — billions of dollars.
Just to our north Elon Musk is building a massive data center in Memphis. But that one is being done the right way — behind the meter. It’s even got an acronym, BTT.
With BTT deals, the data center builds and pays for the cost of its own electricity, thus the term “behind the meter.” The data center electricity does not go onto the grid and, as a result, it is not put into “the rate base” — which is code for making the residential consumers pay for everything.
