I\u2019m Brian Gordon, tech reporter for The News & Observer, and this is Open Source, a weekly newsletter on business, labor and technology in North Carolina.<\/p>\n
Read more 90 Day’s Armando Gives Update on Daughter After Reunion at Hospital<\/a><\/p>\n Let\u2019s take a moment to remember Jordan Parker, who for the past year had been one of North Carolina\u2019s most productive journalists. With as many as eight stories a day, he (it? they?) published community news for a website<\/a> called \u201cHey Durham\u201d that states it is \u201cProudly Made in Durham, NC.\u201d<\/p>\n These articles lacked original reporting. They were instead rewordings of recent local coverage from outlets like The N&O and WRAL. And Jordan Parker appears to be fictitious. There is no record of a Triangle journalist with that name. And after I reached out to \u201cHey Durham\u201d on Wednesday to ask about the potential AI byline, the website within an hour removed the name and replaced it with \u201cHey Durham\u201d underneath all its headlines.<\/p>\n The outlet, whose creator is hidden in website registration filings, did not respond to my questions.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s just tons of these out there,\u201d said Tony Elkins, a faculty member at the journalism research nonprofit Poynter Institute and a board member of the NC Local<\/a> news organization. \u201cIt takes nothing to pop these up.\u201d<\/p>\n Artificial intelligence has made aggregating (with some attribution) or downright stealing local reporting quite easy. Teams of one can sprout up outlets within a day. The objectives of some are partisan; there is a category of AI-generated news websites often labeled \u201cpink slime<\/a>\u201d run by interest groups. Others, like \u201cHey Durham,\u201d simply republish local news broadly without an apparent agenda, except for perhaps gaining enough traction to eventually sell ads.<\/p>\n And \u201cHey Durham\u201d wouldn\u2019t be the only one to have invented reporter bylines.<\/p>\n Hoodline, a website from a California company called impress3, looks like a bizarro Axios. It has local community pages for more than 30 cities, including Raleigh<\/a>, Durham<\/a> and Charlotte<\/a>. I formally invite any of the reporters behind Hoodline bylines to a North Carolina journalist meet-up, though I doubt any could conceivably show up.<\/p>\n Ryan Fletcher, Brynn Hawthorne, Nina Caldwell, Carlos Hernandez, Adrianne Sinclair, Edith Carmichael and Talia Wren aren\u2019t real. Beside each name is a small blue icon that says \u201cAI.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cBoy, that\u2019s small,\u201d said Philip Napoli, director of Duke University\u2019s Center for Media & Democracy. \u201cMy 56-year-old eyes didn\u2019t notice.\u201d Impress3 did not respond to my questions asking why it uses bylines in this way.<\/p>\n Napoli said fake bylines are one of several ways AI can blur the distinction between accountable local journalism and slop. My colleagues and I can be transparent in a way \u201cDesmond Larkin\u201d<\/a> can\u2019t.<\/p>\n A core discussion in the ongoing Duke Energy Carolinas rate case hearing (which you can stream here<\/a>) has been what North Carolina\u2019s first-ever large load tariff should look like. In energy regulation, tariffs are rules \u2014 not import taxes. The state has never had one for large load consumers, but AI data centers are changing that.<\/p>\n After initially arguing a tariff was unnecessarily duplicative, Duke last month concurred with the state advocate Public Staff that unique policies for the biggest electricity consumers would be beneficial. More states<\/a> have begun adopting specific tariffs for large electricity consumers to protect their grids and ratepayers. Especially if ambitious data center projects<\/a> require utilities to spend a lot upfront.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019d be a base contract that would be modified for individual customers,\u201d Will Scott of the Environmental Defense Fund said in a phone interview. \u201cBut the base level of protection would be something that everyone could understand.\u201d<\/p>\n Read more Justin Bieber Performs Shirtless During Surprise Fanatics Fest Appearance<\/a><\/p>\n Duke\u2019s and the Public Staff\u2019s tariff proposals align in several ways: The rules would start applying when consumers seek at least 50 megawatts. These consumers would then be billed for at least 75% of the megawattage they request, even if they never ultimately use that much. There would also be an exit fee for projects that fail and minimum 10-year contracts, with even larger consumers having to sign on for 15 years.<\/p>\n How do their tariff plans differ? Public Staff witnesses last week testified that Duke\u2019s exit fees would be \u201cmore lenient\u201d than what the Public Staff seeks. A second difference between the two sides revolves around curtailment, or Duke\u2019s right to reduce large consumers\u2019 power usage to ensure overall grid reliability. While Duke wants the ability to control curtailment rules going forward, the Public Staff says the Utilities Commission should have oversight.<\/p>\n Fraud accusations. Congressional lobbying. Income questions. A marriage that spotlights an inconsistency in North Carolina\u2019s lawmaker disclosure laws.<\/p>\n My story on Sen. Sophia Chitlik of Durham this week detailed previously unreported connections<\/a> between her and her husband\u2019s company, American Efficient, which federal regulators claim cost ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The company has strongly denied it violated the law.<\/p>\n Why did Chitlik, several months into being legally separated from her husband and the same year she won her first primary, join him to actively advocate for American Efficient\u2019s interests at a time when the company knew it was under investigation?<\/a> \u201cBefore I became a legislator, I helped Ben navigate a situation to be a supportive friend to the father of my child,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n What Chitlik didn\u2019t explain is how she supports herself financially or if she was aware of the FERC investigation at the time of the lobbying. Legally, she doesn\u2019t have to. That doesn\u2019t mean some won\u2019t want to know.<\/p>\n On July 7, Wolfspeed sued<\/a> fellow semiconductor supplier Navitas for patent infringement. Navitas is a younger publicly traded company with far fewer employees, but its market value is actually greater.<\/p>\n Durham\u2019s Wolfspeed manufactures a specific semiconductor called silicon carbide (SiC). It alleges Navitas violated patents on five SiC-based products, four of which Navitas gained through a 2022 acquisition of another company, GeneSiC.<\/p>\n It\u2019s been 10 months since Wolfspeed exited Chapter 11 bankruptcy with a new shareholder structure<\/a>. Navitas has denied wrongdoing and vowed to defend itself in court. Both companies have seen much of their 2026 stock market gains erased over the past month amid a sector selloff.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s very likely that Navitas will counterclaim and sue Wolfspeed for infringement of its patents,\u201d Wake Forest University School of Law professor Keith Robinson told me after reviewing Wolfspeed\u2019s claim. Robinson also spotted an interesting overlap that suggests the two companies know each other well: GeneSiC founder Ranbir Singh is a former Wolfspeed scientist.<\/p>\n Thanks for reading!<\/p>\n Thank you for supporting local journalism. If you liked it, consider sharing it with a friend. If it was forwarded to you, sign up here to subscribe<\/a>.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n