Sports Illustrated Published AI-Generated Articles Under Fake Names
JOHN SEXTON 10:40 PM on November 27, 2023
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2023/11/27/sports-illustrated-published-ai-generated-articles-under-fake-names-n595146


Sports Illustrated Published AI-Generated Articles Under Fake Names

Sports Illustrated was once the benchmark for sports content but today the site has been accused of publishing AI-generated content under the names of authors who are also AI-generated. Case in point, Drew Ortiz who had a photo and an author biography on the site.

Outside of Sports Illustrated, Drew Ortiz doesn’t seem to exist. He has no social media presence and no publishing history. And even more strangely, his profile photo on Sports Illustrated is for sale on a website that sells AI-generated headshots, where he’s described as “neutral white young-adult male with short brown hair and blue eyes.”…

Sometime this summer…Ortiz disappeared from Sports Illustrated‘s site entirely, his profile page instead redirecting to that of a “Sora Tanaka.” Again, there’s no online record of a writer by that name — but Tanaka’s profile picture is for sale on the same AI headshot marketplace as Ortiz, where she’s listed as “joyful asian young-adult female with long brown hair and brown eyes.”

Futurism, the site that broke this story, talked to a couple of employees (real ones) who were involved. They confirm it wasn’t just the authors who were machine generated.

“There’s a lot,” they told us of the fake authors. “I was like, what are they? This is ridiculous. This person does not exist.”…

According to a second person involved in the creation of the Sports Illustrated content who also asked to be kept anonymous, that’s because it’s not just the authors’ headshots that are AI-generated. At least some of the articles themselves, they said, were churned out using AI as well.

When the site asked Sports Illustrated about the articles, all of them suddenly disappeared. Later a spokesperson for the publisher told them that an outside advertiser had put together those articles but that advertiser had assured them the articles were written by humans. But what about the fake authors and headshots? The publisher didn’t have anything to say about that.

The union for the site’s writers said real authors were horrified by the report.

“We, the workers of the SI Union, are horrified by a story on the site Futurism,” the missive began. “If true, these practices violate everything we believe about journalism. We deplore being associated with something so disrespectful to our readers.”

It continued, “We demand answers and transparency from [parent group] Arena Group management about what exactly has been published under the SI name. We demand the company adhere to basic journalistic standards, including not publishing computer-written stories by fake people.”

Here’s the full statement.

And here’s the response from The Arena Group.

The rest of the statement reads:

AdVon has assured us that all of the articles in question were written and edited by humans. According to AdVon, their writers, editors, and researchers create and curate content and follow a policy that involves using both counter-plagiarism and counter-AI software on all content. However, we have learned that AdVon had writers use a pen or pseudo name in certain articles to protect author privacy – actions we strongly condemn – and we are removing the content while our internal investigation continues and have since ended the partnership.

But as Futurism pointed out, the articles themselves sound a bit off. For instance, this post about buying a volleyball is pretty weird: [emphasis added]

Even people who don’t watch sports can easily understand the intensity and skill required to play volleyball whenever they watch clips. There’s a reason why it’s been such a mainstay in modern sports to this day. Volleyball can be a little tricky to get into, especially without an actual ball to practice with. You’ll have to drill in the fundamentals in your head before you can really play the game the way it was meant to be played…

Is that something a human would write? Similarly, Futurism found non-existent authors being published on another site owned by Arena Publishing. This one is called The Street and included an article by Nicole Merrifield (who doesn’t exist) which opens:

Your financial status translates to your value in society. It not only helps you lead a better life but also creates an impactful image. People with strong financial status are revered and given special advantages everywhere around the world. You may be earning a handsome amount or be well-to-do, but if you don’t have a strong financial standing, you are missing out on a lot of benefits from society.

I wrote about Buzzfeed’s terrible AI-generated content back in March. Google was reportedly also testing out an AI tool to write news content this summer and pitching it to major newspapers as a digital assistant for journalists.

Google is testing a product that uses artificial intelligence technology to produce news stories, pitching it to news organizations including The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal’s owner, News Corp, according to three people familiar with the matter.

The tool, known internally by the working title Genesis, can take in information — details of current events, for example — and generate news content, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the product.

One of the three people familiar with the product said that Google believed it could serve as a kind of personal assistant for journalists, automating some tasks to free up time for others, and that the company saw it as responsible technology that could help steer the publishing industry away from the pitfalls of generative A.I.

Would we know if some of these sites were already using it? I think we would, at least in 2023, but the AI tools seem to improve ever few months. In a few more years it might become really difficult to tell.

John wrote:

And he deceives
those who dwell on the earth... He was granted power to give breath to the image

Makes you wonder, eh?

I know TV and Movies are not real. However, I feel we have enough situations to cause concern when it comes to AI. I also know as someone who makes a living in technology that's probably a no-no way of thinking. I personally feel that we American's fail to know our limits. One of my first realizations of this was as a teenager. We would call into the radio show and ask for our favorite hit to be played, over and over and over again. Then months later it was "overplayed". We do the similar principle with gambling, booze, and sometimes even partners.

I see AI being something that could be amazingly helpful for our society, but it needs to have proper governance. And I do not have confidence we can do that.

Also, this crap annoys me. A damn robot trying to verify I am not a robot? Screw you.

[attach]4246[/attach]

Zero2Cool;460896I see AI being something that could be amazingly helpful for our society, but it needs to have proper governance. And I do not have confidence we can do that.

I agree, but at the same time, if we limit what's allowed to be used, then places where there are no limits will then get some advantages.

Just saying it's a double edged sword, either way can cut you, and it's tough to make that balancing act, especially when rules and regulations are usually, at minimum, a decade behind in the times.

Zero2Cool;460900Also, this crap annoys me. A damn robot trying to verify I am not a robot? Screw you.

[attach]4246[/attach]

Absolutely and there is this one that I hate the most, that tells you to click all the squares with _______ in the picture.

Let's say the blank is motorcycle, but it's one huge picture split up into 16 squares. Of course there are obvious ones that you click or don't click, but then the motorcycle's mirror is in a square by itself... or the motorcycle's kick stand...

Do you click that, or not? Technically it's part of the motorcycle, but it's by itself in that square is not a motorcycle. Just what counts for the sake of the quiz and what doesn't?

beast;460902Absolutely and there is this one that I hate the most, that tells you to click all the squares with _______ in the picture.

Let's say the blank is motorcycle, but it's one huge picture split up into 16 squares. Of course there are obvious ones that you click or don't click, but then the motorcycle's mirror is in a square by itself... or the motorcycle's kick stand...

Do you click that, or not? Technically it's part of the motorcycle, but it's by itself in that square is not a motorcycle. Just what counts for the sake of the quiz and what doesn't?

The one that my pedantic ass gets nailed on his "click squares with car" and then there's one with a bus so obviously I do not click it BBBBBBBBBBBBBBOINK you wrong!!! YOU NOT HUMAN!!!

Zero2Cool;460903The one that my pedantic ass gets nailed on his "click squares with car" and then there's one with a bus so obviously I do not click it BBBBBBBBBBBBBBOINK you wrong!!! YOU NOT HUMAN!!!

actually, the is one of the robot checkers that has really fully characters (like M3k7Yb) only they on on an angle and very hard to read, esp. if you have bad eyes.