Untitled topic
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: undefined
#2Re: undefined
#3[dead]
Re: undefined
#4[dead]
That seems weirdly dishonest. Do the journalist know they are getting AI generated quotes?
I would think that most people who want to see LLMs widely used would be opposed to this kind of effort, even if only to avoid bringing more opposition to bear against them.
Re: undefined
#5[dead]
That seems weirdly dishonest. Do the journalist know they are getting AI generated quotes?
A journalist should not, under any circumstances, use an AI-generated "quote" in a news story. It's not an actual quote from an actual source, because no human being actually said it. It's just a jumble of words that doesn't actually express anyone's opinion or judgment. An AI-generated statement has no authority, because it doesn't represent anyone's expertise and no one is staking their reputation on the accuracy of the statement. And if you're a PR client, letting an LLM speak for you strikes me as reckless. If you're talking to the media, it should be to establish your own expertise and knowledge, not a chatbot's.
I may be applying too high a standard here. Looking at the "Clients Results" section, these quotes are getting placed in low-level filler articles that are mostly marketing, and no one expects these to be hard-hitting journalism. Heck, all these articles could be entirely AI-generated. But these kinds of marketing filler articles have very low credibility, so I'm very skeptical of the PR value of being quoted in them.