Patrixia Ross, 38, brings a distinguished family background to her life in America. She is a naturalised United States citizen originally from the Philippines, and reports indicate she was raised in an environment of high professional achievement, as both of her parents were respected doctors in her home country.
That upbringing in the medical field suggests a life of relative privilege and education before she moved to the United States and married the federal agent. Neighbours in their Minnesota community described her as a dedicated mother who was deeply involved in raising their children.
She appears to enjoy cooking, having previously shared photos of baking recipes from a Spanish-language cookbook on social media. In July 2013, she also posted a snap of herself next to a US Border Patrol helicopter, when the couple was living around El Paso, Texas, according to the Daily Mail.
Neighbours told the outlet that Patrixia is ‘polite, very nice, [and] very outgoing’, a stark contrast to her ‘very reserved’ husband. The couple reportedly shares ‘a couple of kids’, and despite the intense scrutiny currently facing her husband, Patrixia has no personal history of legal trouble or public controversy prior to the shooting.
Her status as a naturalised citizen, however, adds a layer of complexity to the narrative, given that her husband’s career was dedicated to enforcing immigration laws.
I’ve never seen a modern AI be challenged by those issues. And I’m not suggesting a human editor(s) wasn’t involved.
But there is something about the sentence structure, framing, and tone. It doesn’t read human to me. It reads like someone pushed a big list of stuff they found out through and AI to summarize and write an article with a specifically neutral tone.
Specifically this line:
You think the AI took the comment, interpreted it as needing an “and” for - reasons - then knew to bracket it because it was part of the quote? That seems like a lot of work for essentially nothing. But maybe.
I think you may misunderstand how AI works. In fact your example suggests that AI did write the article.
The original text in the Daily Mail is
This is a very human way to speak - not adding in the ‘and’ because it’s not needed, and is actually clunky - and the human reporter recorded it in that way.
It was the AI that took that quote and added the ‘[and]’ because that is the grammatically correct expectation - that is, it’s the most likely way that sentence would be written in English, and it is trained on written text - even if it’s not the human way to speak.
A human would not add the ‘and’ because it’s not needed.
Plus there are dozens of other examples of AI phrasing in the article.