Wikipedia Wisely Downgrades CNET Reliability Score After Lazy AI Screw Ups
We've noted repeatedly how early attempts to integrate AI" into journalism have proven to be acomical mess, resulting in no shortage ofshoddy product, dangerous falsehoods, and plagiarism. It's thanks in large part to the incompetent executives at many large media companies, who see AI primarily as a way to cut corners, assault unionized labor, and automate lazy and mindless ad engagement clickbait.
The folks rushing to implement half-cooked AI at places likeRed Ventures (CNET)andG/O Media (Gizmodo)aren't competent managers to begin with. Now they're integrating AI" with zero interest in whether it actually works or if it undermines product quality. They're also often doing it without telling staffers what's happening, revealing a widespread disdain for their own employees.
After CNET repeatedly published automated dreck, Wikipedia has taken the step of no longer ranking the formerly widely respected news site as a generally reliable" news source. As Futurism notes, the website's crap automated content crafted by fake automated journalists increasingly doesn't pass muster:
Let's take a step back and consider what we've witnessed here," a Wikipedia editor who goes by the name bloodofox" chimed in. CNETgenerated a bunch of content with AI, listed some of it as written by people (!), claimed it was all edited and vetted by people, and then, after getting caught, issued some corrections' followed by attacks on the journalists that reported on it," they added, alluding to the time thatCNET'sthen-Editor-in-Chief Connie Guglielmo - who now serves as Red Ventures' Senior Vice President of AI Edit Strategy" - disparaginglyreferred to journalistswho coveredCNET'sAI debacle as some writers... I won't call them reporters.""
Of course CNET was already having credibility problems long before AI came on the scene. The website, like many tech news" websites, increasingly acts more of an extension of gadget marketing departments than an adult news venture. CNET editorial standards have long been murky, as exemplified by that whole CES Dish Network award scandal roughly a decade ago.
Things got worse once CNET was purchased by Red Ventures, which has been happy to soften the outlet's coverage to please advertisers, and, like most modern media companies, sees journalism not as a truth-telling exercise, but as a purely extractive path toward chasing engagement at impossible scale.
That sentiment is everywhere you currently look, as a rotating crop of trust fund failsons drive what's left of U.S. journalism into the soil. These folks see journalism as an irrelevant venture, and they're keen to turn it into a sort of automated journalism simulacrum; stuff that looks somewhat like useful reporting, but is predominantly an unholy fusion of facts-optional marketing and engagement bait.
It's great to see the folks at Wikipedia take note and act accordingly.