4 ms·

Mysterious bylines appeared on a USA Today site. Did these writers exist?

39 points by quantified 3y ago

bruceb 3y ago
Who is the democraphic that buys USA Today? Always seemed like the newspaper you see in basic chain hotels and no where else. Not surprised if they switched to a majority Ai articles.
- bruceb 3y ago
  *demographic
- cafard 3y ago
  Depending on the town you are in, USA Today could be bigger than the local paper, and maybe have better national and international coverage. That was sometimes the case in my peak traveling days 35 years ago, when the newspapers generally were in better shape.
  - iAMkenough 3y ago
    Now the local paper is owned by Gannett, has two full time staff members, is put together by a team in another state working on 20 other “local” papers, and is 70% USA Today content.
- K0balt 3y ago
  It’s been written by (A)ctually (I)nterns since I can remember. Such consistency in unimaginative and bland prose is a feat worthy of a Pulitzer in itself.
ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
https://archive.li/cYSXZ https://archive.li/cYSXZ
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dzdt 3y ago
Is there any reliable way of recognizing GAN-generated photos? It seems the suupposed authors here probably have AI faked photos as well.
- dartos 3y ago
  GANs specifically? Kind of? The GAN process naturally creates a kind of model that can guess if an image is real enough. But for things like stable diffusion or dalle we can’t, really.
- sdflhasjd 3y ago
  Intuitively I would say those look like GAN profile pictures to me. Trying to more objectively analyse them, the things that give it away are - Generic out of focus greenery background that is both a little too bland for professional headshots but also inconsistent between them. - Odd details around the ears - "pseudo earings" in the hair detail where the ears are covered. - Finally, what the heck is going on with Breanna Miller's left shoulder?
jstarfish 3y ago
> But Gannett insists the articles weren’t AI-generated. In a statement to The Post, a spokesperson said the articles — many of which have now been deleted — were created through a deal with a marketing firm to generate paid search-engine traffic. While Gannett concedes the original articles “did not meet our affiliate standards,” officials deny they were written by AI. > Meanwhile, AdVon Commerce is open about its use of AI. On its LinkedIn page, the company says it uses “AI solutions for E Commerce.” > A Gannett spokesperson took issue with the Guild claim that the writers weren’t real people, pointing to the LinkedIn page of one AdVon Commerce writer whose name appeared on a Reviewed article. At the top of his account, that writer touted his experience in “polishing AI generative text.” > This isn’t the first time Gannett has found itself answering embarrassing questions about AI practices. In August, Gannett attempted to automate high school sports coverage at some of its papers with AI-generated articles, only to pull the experiment after it produced error-ridden stories. It's like we can't trust mass media anymore.
- iAMkenough 3y ago
  > It’s like we can’t trust mass media anymore. We can’t trust Gannett, but it’s dangerous to dismiss all perceived “mass media” because of the decisions of one company. If you’ve been paying attention to who owns the media you consume, you’ve likely already written off Gannett-tarnished outlets years ago.
- rnk 3y ago
  There are two reasons to be disappointed, both because the articles were AI generated almost certainly (or lazy intern generated?) and because they were really paid advertisements and not identified as such. It's great that you gave those details, I just wanted to emphasize.
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    The main reason to be disappointed is the fluency with which people have taken to just outright lying. The article, to me, proves pretty conclusively that the articles were AI generated and that most (or at least some) of the authors aren't real people but the spokesman is just... lying. > A Gannett spokesperson took issue with the Guild claim that the writers weren’t real people, pointing to the LinkedIn page of one AdVon Commerce writer whose name appeared on a Reviewed article. At the top of his account, that writer touted his experience in “polishing AI generative text.” Like... This is like pointing to a robot and saying it isn't a robot. Nobody is fooled. But... why even do it? Isn't it... idk, embarrassing? To just talk complete nonsense?

39 points by quantified 3y ago

Who is the democraphic that buys USA Today? Always seemed like the newspaper you see in basic chain hotels and no where else. Not surprised if they switched to a majority Ai articles.

bruceb 3y ago
*demographic
cafard 3y ago
Depending on the town you are in, USA Today could be bigger than the local paper, and maybe have better national and international coverage. That was sometimes the case in my peak traveling days 35 years ago, when the newspapers generally were in better shape.
- iAMkenough 3y ago
  Now the local paper is owned by Gannett, has two full time staff members, is put together by a team in another state working on 20 other “local” papers, and is 70% USA Today content.
K0balt 3y ago
It’s been written by (A)ctually (I)nterns since I can remember. Such consistency in unimaginative and bland prose is a feat worthy of a Pulitzer in itself.

ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago

https://archive.li/cYSXZ https://archive.li/cYSXZ

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dzdt 3y ago

Is there any reliable way of recognizing GAN-generated photos? It seems the suupposed authors here probably have AI faked photos as well.

dartos 3y ago
GANs specifically? Kind of? The GAN process naturally creates a kind of model that can guess if an image is real enough. But for things like stable diffusion or dalle we can’t, really.
sdflhasjd 3y ago
Intuitively I would say those look like GAN profile pictures to me. Trying to more objectively analyse them, the things that give it away are - Generic out of focus greenery background that is both a little too bland for professional headshots but also inconsistent between them. - Odd details around the ears - "pseudo earings" in the hair detail where the ears are covered. - Finally, what the heck is going on with Breanna Miller's left shoulder?

jstarfish 3y ago

> But Gannett insists the articles weren’t AI-generated. In a statement to The Post, a spokesperson said the articles — many of which have now been deleted — were created through a deal with a marketing firm to generate paid search-engine traffic. While Gannett concedes the original articles “did not meet our affiliate standards,” officials deny they were written by AI. > Meanwhile, AdVon Commerce is open about its use of AI. On its LinkedIn page, the company says it uses “AI solutions for E Commerce.” > A Gannett spokesperson took issue with the Guild claim that the writers weren’t real people, pointing to the LinkedIn page of one AdVon Commerce writer whose name appeared on a Reviewed article. At the top of his account, that writer touted his experience in “polishing AI generative text.” > This isn’t the first time Gannett has found itself answering embarrassing questions about AI practices. In August, Gannett attempted to automate high school sports coverage at some of its papers with AI-generated articles, only to pull the experiment after it produced error-ridden stories. It's like we can't trust mass media anymore.

iAMkenough 3y ago
> It’s like we can’t trust mass media anymore. We can’t trust Gannett, but it’s dangerous to dismiss all perceived “mass media” because of the decisions of one company. If you’ve been paying attention to who owns the media you consume, you’ve likely already written off Gannett-tarnished outlets years ago.
rnk 3y ago
There are two reasons to be disappointed, both because the articles were AI generated almost certainly (or lazy intern generated?) and because they were really paid advertisements and not identified as such. It's great that you gave those details, I just wanted to emphasize.
- 15457345234 3y ago
  The main reason to be disappointed is the fluency with which people have taken to just outright lying. The article, to me, proves pretty conclusively that the articles were AI generated and that most (or at least some) of the authors aren't real people but the spokesman is just... lying. > A Gannett spokesperson took issue with the Guild claim that the writers weren’t real people, pointing to the LinkedIn page of one AdVon Commerce writer whose name appeared on a Reviewed article. At the top of his account, that writer touted his experience in “polishing AI generative text.” Like... This is like pointing to a robot and saying it isn't a robot. Nobody is fooled. But... why even do it? Isn't it... idk, embarrassing? To just talk complete nonsense?