81–90 of 169 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think people do actually consume it. In my experience this content was purely for SEO or maybe just a headline that people read quickly to keep up-to-date. The actual article content is rarely seen by a human.
that's a form of consumption
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the depression shouldn't arise from the generation, but from the consumption, for it is the latter that ultimately drives the former; that, in turn, can generate a reflection on what I myself consume.
I don't think people do actually consume it. In my experience this content was purely for SEO or maybe just a headline that people read quickly to keep up-to-date. The actual article content is rarely seen by a human.
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 time…
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 time…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well AI certainly didn't make it better in this case. The fact that it is profitable to make this generic sports-lingo-laced content is, on its own, pretty depressing.
the depression shouldn't arise from the generation, but from the consumption, for it is the latter that ultimately drives the former; that, in turn, can generate a reflection on what I myself consume.
This match was broadcast by ESPN on both ESPN2 and ESPN+. In that case, they are presumably paying two knowledgeable commentators to talk about the match before, during, and after it happens, adding context and describing the important events. Are they not providing a transcript of that to the writerbot? That seems like real low-hanging fruit, especially since the commentary is already live captioned.
Note that I have no knowledge whatsoever of how ESPN work, I'm inferring from what I've seen elsewhere.
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?
In defense of the AI - the fact that it was her last match has little relevance to the game itself. These are the emotional sprinkles, that AI often misses.(Which is to be expected from an emotionless AI)
Only if you view the game as a cold emotionless process where the important thing is simply the data coming out, rather than the entirely human construct it is.
To whom was this not apparent as the most likely outcome of going down this path?
this is precisely what I would expect to hear from the echo chamber of HN where the readers are too focused on the tech than on the users of the tech. AI has been promoted as the best thing since best thing references were created. Of course people that understand the tech will know it's not really that great, but the people being sold the tech just accept the brochure as gospel and think it is amazing. Do you think…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think people do actually consume it. In my experience this content was purely for SEO or maybe just a headline that people read quickly to keep up-to-date. The actual article content is rarely seen by a human.
I see SEO as a make work project to support Wall Street valuations. We have SEO content being consumed by content indexing bots for traffic.
You're missing the whole middle part about users and revenue. SEO alone does not a Wall Street valuation make.
Maybe the indictment here should instead be about discovery and how we share ideas and utility with one another.