I started working for a B2B website in 2021 as a daily writer and reporter, it got sold in late 2022, but in early 2023 I was named editor. In the spring of this year the entire editorial team was eliminated and they moved to all AI content generation. We had a team of up to five writers, and we had developed a pretty solid publication and traffic was the highest it had been the entire time I was at the site when we were let go.
They paid pretty well, but the new owners really didn't know what they were doing in terms of business or media. I feel, although I don't know for sure, they were struggling financially and they saw AI as a way to do what they were doing without paying for it. They never talked with me about it, just did it. I suppose AI could work in this way with some effort but it still needs to be edited (the site is really a mess of style and everything else right now). One of the owners was especially fascinated by AI from the start, and for everything -- content, images, social media posts, whatever. I was always cold to it, so I think that's why they never at least addressed it with me.
Anyway, I am biased and I have mostly moved on, but I do still check in on the site. Like I said, it is a mess and I hate it because we had built such a solid platform. They recently started using bylines after three months or so of none. I believe these are not real people, they are super common names and there is no connection anywhere to this company -- the owners also love LinkedIn and a big red flag is no writers are connected to them currently. There is also nothing on the website about any writers (before there was a huge editorial landing page).
So are there any standards or ethics to any of this? Should a media source that presents itself as some sort of leader on the subject be clear to its readers that it is artificially produced? Is there a benefit to using fake people? I am guessing they got some pushback from advertisers and other users on their content and lack of people, but that is just a guess. Should they let people know that these are not real people (I have seen bylines elsewhere that have a name but indicate it is AI produced)?
I am getting kind of old in the industry and AI is not something I am well versed in. I am willing to learn, and do believe it can be a tool, but I don't think it replaces people in creativity or even total fact checking. One of my old writers, who works for a very respected publication, said he's had to sign contracts stating he will not use AI, so it isn't widely accepted yet.
But when used what should the public or clients be informed of? What is overall acceptable? Anything?
They paid pretty well, but the new owners really didn't know what they were doing in terms of business or media. I feel, although I don't know for sure, they were struggling financially and they saw AI as a way to do what they were doing without paying for it. They never talked with me about it, just did it. I suppose AI could work in this way with some effort but it still needs to be edited (the site is really a mess of style and everything else right now). One of the owners was especially fascinated by AI from the start, and for everything -- content, images, social media posts, whatever. I was always cold to it, so I think that's why they never at least addressed it with me.
Anyway, I am biased and I have mostly moved on, but I do still check in on the site. Like I said, it is a mess and I hate it because we had built such a solid platform. They recently started using bylines after three months or so of none. I believe these are not real people, they are super common names and there is no connection anywhere to this company -- the owners also love LinkedIn and a big red flag is no writers are connected to them currently. There is also nothing on the website about any writers (before there was a huge editorial landing page).
So are there any standards or ethics to any of this? Should a media source that presents itself as some sort of leader on the subject be clear to its readers that it is artificially produced? Is there a benefit to using fake people? I am guessing they got some pushback from advertisers and other users on their content and lack of people, but that is just a guess. Should they let people know that these are not real people (I have seen bylines elsewhere that have a name but indicate it is AI produced)?
I am getting kind of old in the industry and AI is not something I am well versed in. I am willing to learn, and do believe it can be a tool, but I don't think it replaces people in creativity or even total fact checking. One of my old writers, who works for a very respected publication, said he's had to sign contracts stating he will not use AI, so it isn't widely accepted yet.
But when used what should the public or clients be informed of? What is overall acceptable? Anything?
