When several articles were published last week on Reviewed, a USA Today-owned website that recommends products, it seemed strange. No one at Review recognized the secondary lines on the pieces.
Review writers and editors began searching for names, but struggled to find evidence — such as a LinkedIn account — that people existed. The quality of the articles was also questionable. Here they began to wonder: Did artificial intelligence write these articles?
Gannett, the parent company of USA Today, says no artificial intelligence was used. About 40 people in the review said yes.
Some of the articles in question were run through artificial intelligence detection software, which repeatedly found that some were not written by humans, a representative of the union that represents reviewing employees said in an email on Friday.
One such program, Winston AI, found that three articles received a “zero percent score by humans,” indicating that they were, most likely, not written by a human, according to Winston AI. the Union. Another had a human score of 1 percent.
One article that received a zero percent human score was a recommendation for the best portable trampoline.
“Looking for the best portable trampoline can be daunting.” He said the review. “Fortunately, this buying guide includes all the essential factors to consider while shopping. Using a trampoline regularly can help improve balance, coordination and agility.
According to Winston AI, “It is very likely that an AI-powered text generator was used.”
Not so, according to Janet.
The articles in question “were created by outside freelancers hired by a marketing agency partner,” Lark Marie Anton, a company spokeswoman, said in a statement on Friday. no artificial intelligence”
Ms Anton still admitted that the reviews were not properly labeled as being written by a third party.
“The pages were published without careful affiliate disclaimers and did not meet our editorial standards,” she said, adding that updates to the articles had been published.
Others were removed after an uproar from several review staff.
When asked about the articles published by review staff through AI detection programs, the woman replied: The finding that humans did not write them was “unfounded,” Anton said.
The Review’s writers and editors are calling for the retraction of all articles in question and an apology from the company for using a third party in work they could have done.
“We’ve been told in no uncertain terms that it’s not going to happen,” Garrett Steele, SEO editor at Review, said Friday.
The third-party company was AdVon Commerce, according to a union representing the employees reviewed. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday afternoon.
As artificial intelligence has become easier to use in recent years, some companies and news organizations have been experimenting with the technology to create content. This has led some writers to worry that their work could be replaced by artificial intelligence.
The references union said On the tenth of Thursday Gannett “would put profit before workers’ rights or journalistic integrity, so we are organized to respond to this attack on unions and the public trust.”
“If AI increases productivity, we demand a fair share, not threats to our jobs,” the union said. “Workers deserve to share in the benefits of new technology, not risk being replaced.”
The NewsGuild of New York, which represents the union reviewed, said On X That the reviewed guild members will “never be replaced by artificial intelligence”
the NewsGuild also said on X That the articles were “a transparent attempt by Gannett to bankrupt the union by threatening reporters with the loss of their jobs” after review union members staged a two-day strike this month to protest a new contract.
Ms. Anton said Janet’s union-busting claim was “patently false.”
“Our leadership is focused on investing in our newsrooms and monetizing our content as we continue to negotiate fairly and in good faith,” she added.
“Explorer. Unapologetic entrepreneur. Alcohol fanatic. Certified writer. Wannabe tv evangelist. Twitter fanatic. Student. Web scholar. Travel buff.”
