USA Today Owner Pauses AI Articles After Butchering Sports Coverage
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: USA Today Owner Pauses AI Articles After Butchering Sports Coverage
#2People think journalism is draped in ulterior motives now, just wait until these publishers are just front ends for AI content created by private companies.
What’s the point in having sponsored content when your supposedly unpaid content is churned out by some kids who raised a couple million bucks off of this AI wave?
The ultimate goal of advertisement is to be invisible, to be influencing without having to admit as much, and AI is the perfect vehicle to do just that.
Re: USA Today Owner Pauses AI Articles After Butchering Sports Coverage
#3We’re not at a point where this can be a human free pipeline, but I bet you could make this work with 1-2 humans in the pipeline that review instead of the 100 you would traditionally need.
Re: USA Today Owner Pauses AI Articles After Butchering Sports Coverage
#4We’re not at a point where this can be a human free pipeline, but I bet you could make this work with 1-2 humans in the pipeline that review instead of the 100 you would traditionally need.
In theory, but I think the problem you'd find in practice is that reviewing 100s of nearly-identical AI-written articles gets very boring very quickly, and a lot of errors would slip through.
Re: USA Today Owner Pauses AI Articles After Butchering Sports Coverage
#5We’re not at a point where this can be a human free pipeline, but I bet you could make this work with 1-2 humans in the pipeline that review instead of the 100 you would traditionally need.
In theory, but I think the problem you'd find in practice is that reviewing 100s of nearly-identical AI-written articles gets very boring very quickly, and a lot of errors would slip through.
Ok, so 2 is not enough. What if you put 4 humans? Or 8? Or maybe even 20 (instead of 100, per OP)?
These experiments fail because they greedily try to outsource all the work to AI. Another recent example: the lawyer who submitted ChapGPT hallucinations directly to a court case.
You don't need to eliminate humans, and certainly not at first. You just need to be much more efficient than status quo in order for AI to be deployed at scale.
Re: USA Today Owner Pauses AI Articles After Butchering Sports Coverage
#6I'm surprised it failed this hard. AI writing has been used for a while in fantasy sports platforms for a while to put in little quips about player performances based on their recent stats and automated projections and read pretty well.
Re: USA Today Owner Pauses AI Articles After Butchering Sports Coverage
#7We’re not at a point where this can be a human free pipeline, but I bet you could make this work with 1-2 humans in the pipeline that review instead of the 100 you would traditionally need.
In theory, but I think the problem you'd find in practice is that reviewing 100s of nearly-identical AI-written articles gets very boring very quickly, and a lot of errors would slip through.
Why? Lots of people do a lot of reading for a living. Reading a new article is way more interesting than thousands of jobs I can think of. Data analysts and accountants literally pour though millions of featureless numbers over their career, why would this be any different?
Re: USA Today Owner Pauses AI Articles After Butchering Sports Coverage
#8We’re not at a point where this can be a human free pipeline, but I bet you could make this work with 1-2 humans in the pipeline that review instead of the 100 you would traditionally need.
Producing something error free sure. Producing something beyond clickbait and spam that people actually want to read, I seriously doubt it.
Re: USA Today Owner Pauses AI Articles After Butchering Sports Coverage
#9the owner is gannett.
the butchered coverage was in local newspapers, also owned by gannett.
which begs the question, why doesn’t the headline just, you know, name gannett?
edit: anyone downvoting care to indicate why? it seems rather pertinent to name the owner, given the scale, and the potential impact of using such technology at scale.
Re: USA Today Owner Pauses AI Articles After Butchering Sports Coverage
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory, but I think the problem you'd find in practice is that reviewing 100s of nearly-identical AI-written articles gets very boring very quickly, and a lot of errors would slip through.
Why? Lots of people do a lot of reading for a living. Reading a new article is way more interesting than thousands of jobs I can think of. Data analysts and accountants literally pour though millions of featureless numbers over their career, why would this be any different?
It's like trying to find typos in your own writing. It's very difficult to stay focused when reading a long series of nearly identical documents. The people you're talking about are reading a lot of novel documents.