Live data from Hacker News

ESPN AI recap of Alex Morgan’s final professional match fails to mention her

awfulannouncing.com

1–10 of 169 posts

Re: ESPN AI recap of Alex Morgan’s final professional match fails to mention her

#3
ESPN removed the humans from reporting, and the AI removed the humans from the report.

In their announcement of the service, ESPN made a point to note that “each AI-generated recap will be reviewed by a human editor to ensure quality and accuracy.” It’s unclear if the human editor failed to notice Morgan’s absence or also decided it was not worth mentioning.

"Blame the intern" has been the great scapegoat for the last hundred years.

Re: ESPN AI recap of Alex Morgan’s final professional match fails to mention her

#5
I do think it would be better to just provide a box score if you have to use AI to write your articles. I do realize that you lose ad views this way so it will never happen. The text is merely to get you to stay on a page long enough to see another ad in the ad ponzi system we have forming the base of our tech pyramid right now.

Re: ESPN AI recap of Alex Morgan’s final professional match fails to mention her

#6
I hate the AI match recaps of WTT (World Table Tennis) matches.

The AI highlights cut off during a point, skip entire points or even sets. Not to mention they don't account for important events that happen between points, they might cut off exciting commentary/celebrations that happened after a point, and even the handshake at the end of the match.

Re: ESPN AI recap of Alex Morgan’s final professional match fails to mention her

#8
I know we're supposed to be shaking our fist at these stupid AIs, but why should Morgan be mentioned? Did she score any goals? Did she get much playing time? I didn't watch the game myself, but it's entirely possible she did nothing notable on the field. So is the AI really mistaken?

Re: ESPN AI recap of Alex Morgan’s final professional match fails to mention her

#9
I've seen a bunch of these articles now and a lot seem to have these sort of "context explainer" paragraphs that seem like they're there as filler to explain the context of the events.

However, they're almost always so general, or even elementary that anyone who would bother to read the article would already know that stuff would wonder why a sports writer would write it. There's zero need for them for the audience they will attract.

A few even have these hilarious "this report was is not intended to indicate X, but .." type paragraphs at the end.

You can almost imagine the prompts that brought them about.

Re: ESPN AI recap of Alex Morgan’s final professional match fails to mention her

#10
It's pretty funny to me that this is used as a hit-piece against AI generated content. Here's an open-secret for everyone: web-based sports content companies have been automatically generating content articles for at least a decade; way before LLMs became popular.

It is and was mostly done for search ranking. The more seemingly applicable content, the better your SEO.

This situation has probably happened several times before AI but has gone unnoticed or noticed to little fanfare. It's more indicative of ESPN not having its finger to the pulse and ensuring that one of the copywriters manually updated this particular article. It's not too surprising to me. They've always been known to favour quantity over quality.

source: I worked as a developer on the tech side of a company with this kind of content

Post reply on HN