4 ms·

Wikipedia downgrades CNET's reliability rating after AI-generated articles

38 points by nabla9 3y ago

chomp5977 3y ago
If you know anything about their parent company this downgrade is warranted.
Spivak 3y ago
I'm quite happy that content farms are spewing out AI articles left and right, we might finally get to the point where regular people start to follow individual writers and editors instead of brands. They're only about to get away with this because it doesn't actually matter who writes the articles they are so boring and generic.
- pimlottc 3y ago
  I'm sure there will soon be plenty of new individual writers for you to follow, like this one [0], or this one [1], or this one [2]. 0: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ 1: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ 2: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
  - pylua 3y ago
    I have never seen that before. When it generates images that have people in the background they look HORRIBLY disfigured.
dartos 3y ago
CNET has been circling the drain for years.
- bnchrch 3y ago
  I don't know if I'd even be that nice. It's been firmly in the drain for over a decade.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nadermx 3y ago
    I mean they do own news.com
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
justinclift 3y ago
> CNET issued a statement that claims that the site maintains high editorial standards. The "high" they're mentioning there must be the marijuana one (aka the editors are permanently stoned), rather than the generally accepted meaning of "high editorial standards".
isaacfrond 3y ago
I don't know about CNET, but having participated for a while in the Articles for Deletion forum, I have little credibility for any opinion from 'the' Wikipedia. You need a majority of whatever number of people show up to delete a page. It is ridiculous. And it always seems to be Deletionists that show up. So if 'the' Wikipedia downgrades CNET, it's probably anti-AI nuts with an axe to grind. I have little stock in this.
- kuhaku22 3y ago
  > You need a majority of whatever number of people show up to delete a page. Except deletion discussions are not votes. [0] Closing admins base their decision on the strength of the arguments presented, not on how many people voted one way or the other. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion#Not-votes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_sub...

38 points by nabla9 3y ago

If you know anything about their parent company this downgrade is warranted.

I'm quite happy that content farms are spewing out AI articles left and right, we might finally get to the point where regular people start to follow individual writers and editors instead of brands. They're only about to get away with this because it doesn't actually matter who writes the articles they are so boring and generic.

pimlottc 3y ago
I'm sure there will soon be plenty of new individual writers for you to follow, like this one [0], or this one [1], or this one [2]. 0: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ 1: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ 2: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
- pylua 3y ago
  I have never seen that before. When it generates images that have people in the background they look HORRIBLY disfigured.

dartos 3y ago

CNET has been circling the drain for years.

bnchrch 3y ago
I don't know if I'd even be that nice. It's been firmly in the drain for over a decade.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nadermx 3y ago
  I mean they do own news.com

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

justinclift 3y ago

> CNET issued a statement that claims that the site maintains high editorial standards. The "high" they're mentioning there must be the marijuana one (aka the editors are permanently stoned), rather than the generally accepted meaning of "high editorial standards".

isaacfrond 3y ago

I don't know about CNET, but having participated for a while in the Articles for Deletion forum, I have little credibility for any opinion from 'the' Wikipedia. You need a majority of whatever number of people show up to delete a page. It is ridiculous. And it always seems to be Deletionists that show up. So if 'the' Wikipedia downgrades CNET, it's probably anti-AI nuts with an axe to grind. I have little stock in this.

kuhaku22 3y ago
> You need a majority of whatever number of people show up to delete a page. Except deletion discussions are not votes. [0] Closing admins base their decision on the strength of the arguments presented, not on how many people voted one way or the other. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion#Not-votes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_sub...