AI vs. Original Content

1. 84

   Kenna McHughposted 10 months ago

   I don't know if I should be embarrassed or curious. A client of mine had another writer from our team update one of my articles on jewelry, which is expected. Updates maintain the search engine rankings.
   So, I took the old content and rewrote it for HP. I mean, what the heck! Some of my best articles do very well revenue-wise on Discover, even though HP will not move them to the network. An editor even said so in an email the other day.
   Back to the jewelry article, HP tagged it as AI content 76% on GPTZero.
   The irony is that I didn't use AI. I don't use AI to write my articles.
   With that problem, I rewrote the piece with a personal spin. It passed AI.
   So, how reliable are these AI detection platforms? What does this mean in the long run? The technology will likely improve, but does adding a personal spin give credibility?

   replyreport
   1. STAFF

      Matt Wellsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Stop using AI and your articles will stop coming back as AI.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

         Matt, I don't use AI. I am pretty upset that HP said I did. GPTZero is not fail-safe. Perhaps, my post wasn't clear. I DO NOT USE AI. Please don't accuse me of such when it's not true. TIA

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Robert Sacchiposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            It would be interesting to know what triggers GPTZero, or any similar application, to conclude something is AI.  Did you just add content for HubPages to accept your article or did you remove or edit some existing content?

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

               I made it more personal in the introduction and throughout the article. GPTZero is not worthy of its findings.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Robert Sacchiposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Thank you.  The reality is if HubPages is using GPTZero to determine which articles are acceptable we'll just have to adapt to it.  I haven't had any AI accusations.  My main trouble has been with putting in Amazon capsules.  Not that it matters, I rarely get a sale.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                     In plain truth, AI sucks. It is affecting the Internet extensively.

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        Robert Sacchiposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                        It's reminiscent of what was said about IBM, "it stands for Inferior But Marketable."

                        replyreport
                        1. 84

                           Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                           Good one!

                           replyreport
                           1. 84

                              Robert Sacchiposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                              Thank you.

                              replyreport
      2. 79

         theraggededgeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

         Whoa! We forum regulars and HP veterans are very clear on the no AI rule. Your response to Kenna is unkind, despite the emoji.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Thanks, Bev, for your support in this matter.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               theraggededgeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

               Of course. I was expecting to find myself banned this morning, but I couldn't let it pass.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
      3. 80

         Cheryl E Prestonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

         She said she does not use AI

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Thank you, Cheryl. I don't think Matt read the post.

            replyreport
      4. 76

         melbelposted 10 months agoin reply to this

         Why are you so rude? She literally said she doesn't use AI.

         replyreport
      5. 82

         Thelma Albertsposted 10 months agoin reply to this

         She is not using AI. How can they determined that she was using AI when in fact, she was not using it. It confuses me.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Confuses me, too.

            replyreport
         2. 84

            Robert Sacchiposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            It's speculative without knowing the AI's protocols.  I had one article, about the Predator UAV, declined because of content.  I appealed the decision and the article got through.  Computer programs have limitations.  There was an old joke "To err is human but it takes a computer to really mess things up."

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

               That's good that your appeal got the article through. Computers, you gotta love 'em when they work.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Robert Sacchiposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Thanks.

                  replyreport
   2. 86

      Joelipooposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      As a teacher, more and more students are using AI in their writing. I had been putting student writing into AI detectors when I was suspicious of cheating from a student. However, I also questioned the credibility of some of these AI detectors. I took a sample introductory paragraph I wrote years ago. It is one I use with my students during a Romeo and Juliet unit. When I put my own piece of writing into an AI detector, it came back as over 80% AI. I understand your frustration with the situation. However, you could also take it as a compliment because the algorithms are identifying your writing as being so quality in certain aspects that it is beyond "human levels."

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Robert Sacchiposted 10 months agoin reply to this

         That makes sense.  Like a student's project being so good the teacher knows a parent did it.  Remember an episode of "Grounded for Life" where that subject came up.

         replyreport
2. 78

   Isivwe Muoboposted 10 months ago

   These things happen. Like you said, most ai-detection tools are not fail-safe.
   
   Sorry you had to rewrite but good thing it was finally accepted

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Thank you, Isivwe.

      replyreport
3. 85

   Jodahposted 10 months ago

   I wrote a poem recently and just out of curiosity, put it through two different AI checkers QuillBot and Scribbr. Both rated my poem 100% AI even though it was totally original. I changed wording and added extra stanzas but the best I could get it down to was 33% chance of being AI written. I posted it on a different site and had another reader run a check, and the AI checker they used came back “likely 0% AI.” So, to me, many AI checkers cannot be trusted.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Kenna McHughposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Jodah, That sounds like what I went through. Just another hurdle writers have to deal with. Thanks for sharing.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Jodahposted 10 months agoin reply to this

         Cheers, Kenna.

         replyreport
4. 85

   Miebakagh57posted 10 months ago

   Seems all these means we writers dare not use references again.                                       For in the use of reference, elements AI can wade into our contents.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      theraggededgeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Of course you can use references. And if the content requires it, then you should always use them, as long as you are linking to reputable sites.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Miebakagh57posted 10 months agoin reply to this

         Thank you, Bev.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Gregory DeVictorposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Miebakagh, I use a lot of references for each of my American nostalgia articles. Thus far, an HP editor hasn't nailed me for one of the references that I have used.
            
            From time to time, a link that I have used becomes a "bad link," and needs to be removed. Generally, this is because the content has been moved to a different location on the website, and no one has provided what is known as a "redirect."

            replyreport
            1. 85

               Miebakagh57posted 10 months agoin reply to this

               GreygoryDeVictor,  I agree with you completely, as, I've experienced the issue. Thank you.

               replyreport
5. 76

   melbelposted 10 months ago

   I was accused of using AI (got a thrashing from the same employee) and was threatened with a ban when there was no usage of AI. Honestly, it's really disheartening. I'm in the middle of writing a programming piece right now and came to the forums to ask a photo question when I saw this.
   
   The money isn't worth it anymore for us being treated like this. I unpublished and I'll move elsewhere. I know I won't be missed because I work silently in the background, but this is no longer a friendly community. These AI accusations and nasty replies have gotten out of hand.

   replyreport
6. 85

   Miebakagh57posted 10 months ago

   One main reason for this sort of troubles is that you read the AI generated contents online. Then before you say 'jack', you've give in a word, or four words sentense, a short phrase, or a apt quatation into your so called original thoughts unknowing. But forgive me if these doesn't give a hint.

   replyreport
7. 84

   Kenna McHughposted 10 months ago

   Joe, I guess that is one way to look at it. Though, HP may not think so.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Miebakagh57posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Kenna, I agree completely with you. HubPages' is our monitor here in content creating. So we've no opinion. Thanks.

      replyreport