Another AI Controversy - Not a good look for Sports Illustrated

1. 95

   jansharesposted 12 months ago

   Our boss is defending itself:
   
   “A number of AdVon’s e-commerce articles ran on certain Arena websites. We continually monitor our partners and were in the midst of a review when these allegations were raised. AdVon has assured us that all of the articles in question were written and edited by humans.”
   
   The Arena Group announced that it cut ties with AdVon and removed its content from Arena websites. The Arena Group also said it does not condone the practice of writing under pseudonyms.
   
   See entire article:
   
   https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/ … ai-writers

   replyreport
   1. 86

      tsmogposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks, Jan for bringing this to our attention. The article opens doors for me to ponder. I am sure there will be more to come in the future. Is the tide turning? Seems, maybe, it is just beginning, eh? What is next on the horizon? I saw an article earlier about Hamas using deep AI-generated fakes with social media posts.
      
      Maybe what follows is off-topic or maybe it isn't.
      
      Just one article of many;
      
      OPINION: Seeing isn't believing: From Gaza to US politics, deepfake videos are peddling fake news. (Nov 27, 2023)
      https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 667284007/
      
      "The existence of deepfakes should lead us to be skeptical if not outright suspicious of the veracity of any news-related videos until factually confirmed by trusted sources or corroborating evidence."

      replyreport
      1. 95

         jansharesposted 12 months agoin reply to this

         Definitely on-topic, Tim. I had seen this reported on the news. It's getting scary.

         replyreport
2. 97

   PaulGoodman67posted 12 months ago

   Thanks for posting Jan!
   
   Yes, I agree, definitely not a good look.
   
   The paragraph that stood out for me was:
   
   "Such moves by Sports Illustrated and BuzzFeed stoke fears of a rise in dystopian content farms and more trouble in the already embattled, shrinking news media sector. The use of AI is cost-efficient compared to human writers and content creators, arguably offering a potential and tempting solution to the financial troubles in the industry."
   
   We human writers could increasingly be seen as a financial burden.
   
   We're still way more reliable than AI, however, which struggles to distinguish reality from fantasy. I was generating images in Canva earlier today and some of the stuff that it was throwing up was downright weird.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      jansharesposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, that paragraph is saying a lot. It's all about money. Now Canva? Ugh!

      replyreport
3. 87

   Jodahposted 12 months ago

   This may explain some of the articles on the niche sites here…where the same authors articles make up most of the page, and they are usually ones I have never heard of before.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      savvydatingposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      AI is here to stay. It’s everywhere. That being said, I much prefer that “writers” use their own words and do their own research. (A great understatement.)

      replyreport
   2. 95

      jansharesposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Interesting observation, John.

      replyreport
      1. 97

         PaulGoodman67posted 12 months agoin reply to this

         I saw a university professor saying that she knew when she was handed work that had bad spelling that it was by a human and not AI.
         
         AI material always seems pretty perfect in terms of spelling and grammar, it just tends to be the content that's flawed. The content also tends to be banal.

         replyreport
4. 92

   Kenna McHughposted 12 months ago

   Interesting, because I submitted an article to a niche site, and the editor turned it down again. The editor asked me to write from a personal experience standpoint, which I did. I only did part of the article, about four or five text capsules, thinking it would suffice.
   
   But it didn't, and the editor turned it down for the same reason. But when I queried, another editor said some of the content was AI-generated. I was like, "WHAT??" I did not use AI at all. I told the editor and asked her to tell me which content she believed was AI. I am still waiting to hear back, and this was last week.
   
   I am posting this story because, first, I was insulted or humiliated for having written content that "sounds" like AI. And second, there are chances of a potential witchhunt.
   
   I will continue to add a more personal touch to the article because that is the only way around this harebrained situation of avoiding accusations.
   
   Or is this calling the kettle black?

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Jodahposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Wow, that is terrible, Kenna. I had one article actually unpublished here and told it was AI created, (which it wasn’t.) I removed it and published elsewhere with no problem. It has been proven that most AI checkers are not accurate, and it appears that used by HubPages certainly isn’t.

      replyreport
      1. 97

         PaulGoodman67posted 12 months agoin reply to this

         I suspect that this will be a temporary problem. Once AI-generated material is convincing enough, we'll no longer have to submit anything as our services will no longer be required.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Jodahposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Unfortunately, you are probably correct, Paul.

            replyreport
   2. 95

      jansharesposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      This is awful, Kenna. Things are beyond out of control. I hope your situation is rectified and you receive an apology.

      replyreport
   3. 92

      SerenityHaloposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      This upsets me a lot that you were accused of using AI writing. The AI checkers are notoriously bad at being able to detect what is human vs. AI written. They should have cautiously approached this with you to figure out what was happening. Someone who has been here for several years has proven they can write without AI.

      replyreport
5. 92

   Kenna McHughposted 12 months ago

   Jan, Jodah, Paul,
   
   If it's not one thing, it's another! Dismay!!

   replyreport
6. STAFF

   Angel Jenningsposted 12 months ago

   We do not host any content created or managed by AdVon on HubPages sites. We want to ensure that our network sites are a space for high-quality, authentic content that abides by our editorial guidelines, which means that we do our best to reject any content we suspect to be generated by AI.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Jodahposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Than you, Angel. That is comforting to know.

      replyreport
   2. 92

      SerenityHaloposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Glad to hear this. I do request that any accusations of AI written content be taken cautiously, especially for writers who have spent years here.
      
      People who have been here a long time have proven they don’t need it. It can be really insulting and time consuming to be accused of using it.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         Kenna McHughposted 12 months agoin reply to this

         Serenity, I agree.

         replyreport
   3. 95

      jansharesposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Thank you, Angel, for responding to this forum post.

      replyreport
7. 97

   PaulGoodman67posted 12 months ago

   While TAG being accused of publishing AI-generated content and HP writers being wrongly accused of submitting AI work here are in some ways separate issues, it does illustrate the trouble and confusion that AI is already causing.
   
   The problem is that it's likely to only get worse, as it becomes harder to distinguish AI from human work.
   
   And why publish human work at all once the readers can no longer tell the difference?
   
   We're not there yet but it's likely coming soon.
   
   The main problem for AI currently is the content. It can write reasonably convincing text but it doesn't know what's real or true. This problem may be solved quickly. Alternatively, unforeseen, difficult problems may be thrown up, as has happened with self-driving vehicles.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      SerenityHaloposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      These are good points. Another problem is the checkers for AI are not very good, so it's very easy to have false positives for human writers.

      replyreport
      1. 97

         PaulGoodman67posted 12 months agoin reply to this

         One of the great ironies for online writers is that technology like ChatGPT only exists because it can mine existing data, essentially articles written by people like us.
         
         We've unwittingly fueled it.
         
         Anyway, I'm not saying that AI won't take over online writing, it will. It's just difficult to know how quickly it will happen. People always want to know that what they're reading is accurate.

         replyreport
         1. 92

            SerenityHaloposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Weirdly, and I could be wrong, I don't think AI will be taking over everything when it comes to writing. I think it will exist alongside us and have its pros and cons. Certain writing is definitely too specific and requires human attention.

            replyreport
            1. 97

               PaulGoodman67posted 12 months agoin reply to this

               No, it won't take over all writing. I'm pretty sure it will gradually replace the stuff like on HubPages, though.
               
               It will suck nearly all of the money out of the system and make earning from writing much more difficult.
               
               Certain forms of writing have already virtually disappeared even before AI's arrival, local journalism/newspapers, for instance.
               
               It's very difficult for companies to make anything from online publishing nowadays even as it is.
               
               The broader environment seems set to change, too, websites and search engines don't look like they're going to be the dominant force they've been for the past twenty years.
               
               Really, though, AI hasn't really got fully started yet. Technology like ChatGPT is called AI but it's more like scraping software combined with a grammar and spelling checker like Grammarly.

               replyreport
               1. 97

                  PaulGoodman67posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  It set me thinking about content creation recently.
                  
                  When I started writing evergreen articles here twelve or thirteen years ago, it wasn't that hard to find topic areas that either hadn't been covered or were covered but not well. (I'm talking about stuff that's commonly searched for)
                  
                  Nowadays, that's not the case. The market is saturated, as was bound to eventually happen with evergreen content.
                  
                  It's left us increasingly dependent on HP to boost our articles and gain an advantage over the ever-intensifying competition.

                  replyreport