161–169 of 169 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're missing the whole middle part about users and revenue. SEO alone does not a Wall Street valuation make. Are they? Or are you over-estimating that part?
> Are they? Do you have an example of a company whose valuation is driven principally by eyeballs? Not metrics tied to eyeballs, e.g. ad revenue. Just eyeballs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are they? Do you have an example of a company whose valuation is driven principally by eyeballs? Not metrics tied to eyeballs, e.g. ad revenue. Just eyeballs.
Ad revenue is part of hot potato game. The participants pick a metric and take sides arguing valuation while passing revenue.
Do you have an example where the metric is eyeballs?
This was a thing once! But to my knowledge, it isn't the sole basis of any company's valuation today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but what they will not do is pay a professional editor to do their job the right way, this I can guarantee I don't think that holds up. They can save a lot of money by using generated articles, but they lose customer (advertiser) confidence if the content isn't accurate. One editor per ten replaced writers is still a significant cost savings. A few iterations from now we might see editors getting replaced too, but…
> but they lose customer (advertiser) confidence if the content isn't accurate The content isn't what it should have been, which is why the previous commenter rightly assumes that no editor looked at it.
Even a low percent of all published articles containing such problems doesn't in any way prove there's no editor involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If "this is the last game for Alex Morgan" wasn't included as any part of the input/prompt, how on earth could the AI summary have come up with this for inclusion in the game recap? It couldn't, which is the problem. One of the big selling points of generative AI is to cut people out of the process of writing. If someone actually has to watch the game and describe what happened in the prompt, what's the point of th…
I'm sure the fact that this would be Morgan's last game was somewhere out there on the Internet, and certainly should have been part of the training data, in which case I would guess that a more nuanced prompt to the AI could have elicited a more robust output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not quite how it worked. There are basically two types of content when it comes to these sports recap articles. I'm also excluding opinions/editorials because those are completely different. 1. low profile, not-so-popular content. eg. A Canadian Football League preseason game between the Toronto Argonauts and BC Lions This was still generated using a template. No human intervention except maybe double-checking…
> This was still generated using a template. No human intervention except maybe double-checking it before publishing it. This was before AI, too. Odd question but is that why the banal reporting on so many websites is such utter shit? Like in all dimensions, it gets facts wrong, it's usually rife with spelling and grammatical errors... when I spend too much time online I start feeling like the sole person on the plan…
Good news take time and journalists often don't have that luxury.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is literally what good editorial is. That's what makes best articles in journalism. No one, including you, is interested in every single detail. And no one, including you, will read a novel for every single game.(and every single soccer game can easily become a novel)
Thanks for telling me what I want. You will get far in life that way!
And I've made a lot of money on disregarding maximalist user requests, thank you very much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely correct! In the old days it was mostly video replay and witty banter describing what you were watching, which was fun to watch. Now it's become something I couldn't care less about, which is less video and someone telling me what I should think about what I just watched.
I'm OK with didactic commentators if the person talking to me is an expert and giving me new information. Broadcast media outlets fail at that. I don't know much about sports but even I can tell that people on TV are speaking in vague generalities so they can never be proven wrong. I get told that the team that lost "didn't want to win" as if people getting paid millions a year to win at sports aren't motivated. When…
If I was into online sports betting, I would want all the info I could get. Since I'm not, what I want is video replay of what I missed, that's where ESPN lost me.
> 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. I don't believe they'll have a human editor ensure quality and accuracy. The whole point of having AI write your stories is to minimize the number of people they have to pay, so payi…
> but what they will not do is pay a professional editor to do their job the right way, this I can guarantee I don't think that holds up. They can save a lot of money by using generated articles, but they lose customer (advertiser) confidence if the content isn't accurate. One editor per ten replaced writers is still a significant cost savings. A few iterations from now we might see editors getting replaced too, but…
Today, with the field of journalism in freefall, we actually have the worst of both worlds: not enough editors, not enough time to report, not enough original reporting being done, and too many AI or computationally generated articles. But, I don't see how getting rid of the humans and doubling down on the AI actually solves that problem in the medium and long terms.