Arena Group Fires CEO In Wake of Sports Illustrated AI Articles Scandal (thehill.com) 22
Last month, Futurism noticed Sports Illustrated was publishing AI-generated articles under fake author biographies. Although the magazine removed the articles in question and released a statement blaming the issue on a contractor, it wasn't enough to quell the widespread backlash. Today, Sports Illustrated's publisher, Arena Group, fired the sports media outlet's CEO. The Hill reports: The Arena Group, which publishes Sports Illustrated, said Monday that its board of directors had moved to fire CEO Ross Levinsohn. The board took the action to "improve the operational efficiency and revenue of the company," the company said. Manoj Bhargava will serve as Arena Group's interim chief executive officer effective this week. Levinsohn was the CEO of Arena Group since 2019 and previously was the publisher of the Los Angeles Times.
Re: Who's Yehoodi? (Score:4, Informative)
Ever heard of Cricket?
Re: Who's Yehoodi? (Score:5, Funny)
*crickets chirping*
Hold up... (Score:2)
They still sell Sports Illustrated?
I mean, you can obviously see the hard work and dedication that goes into attempting to commit fraud by passing off computer generated bullshit as though it was written by humans. News of almost any kind is dead at this point. Mostly just lies, lies, partisan propaganda, more lies...
AND NOW A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR RAID SHADOW LEGEND
Re: (Score:3)
commit fraud by passing off computer generated bullshit as though it was written by humans.
How is that fraud? Plenty of people read the articles and enjoyed them. Does it matter what entity wrote them?
Nobody noticed they were machine-generated until someone tried to investigate the background of the "author".
I don't understand the knee-jerk hostility to machine intelligence. You're like that bartender in Mos Eisely telling Luke Skywalker "We don't serve their kind here. You'll have to leave your doids outside."
Re: Hold up... (Score:2)
If they knew how the average article was written they'd probably appreciate the AI ones more.
Re: (Score:2)
https://futurism.com/sports-il... [futurism.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current "AI" is just a complete dumbass and there is no way to explain to it why it's wrong. It does the equivalent of sticking its fingers in its ears going "la-la-la I can't hear you" while continuing to spit out incorrect and sometimes outright harmful information. I'm not wasting time on that shit.
The same could be said of politicians. Maybe we should replace politicians with AIs? Would anyone notice the difference?
Re: (Score:1)
All modern clickbait media sources do the same shit. Some are just less obvious and more cagey about it. SI's real mistake is admitting it.
Re:Hold up... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the articles were presented as human-authored, then yes, it matters who wrote them.
Saying "a human wrote this" when in fact it was AI-generated is called "lying."
Maybe you don't care whether a human or an AI wrote your articles. Ok that's fine. But that does not make it ok to lie to OTHER people who DO care.
And it doesn't matter WHY they care. Maybe you think they are silly for preferring human-authored content when AI-authored content is just as good and indistinguishable. Ok, that's a fine opinion to have. But that STILL does not make it ok to LIE to them and claim it was human authored, when it was really AI authored.
Lying to customers is wrong (and usually illegal) regardless of whether or not the topic of deception "should" matter to those customers.
Re:Hold up... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand the knee-jerk hostility to machine intelligence.
The hostility is because machine intelligence does not exist. What they inaccurately label "AI" is pattern-matching software.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that fraud? Plenty of people read the articles and enjoyed them. Does it matter what entity wrote them?
From this quote we know you didn't actually look at the articles in question - no human is enjoying them.
To me established brands participating in this AI spam is incredibly short sighted. Perhaps in the next few years they'll get some cheap impressions, but what they're trading is their brand equity from all the readers who start to equate their sites with low quality trash. We're going to be suffering a deluge of low quality trash as SEO'd content farms proliferate; eventually search engines and individua
It is inevitable, though. (Score:3)
The tech is not "there" yet, but assuming it is possible to get it there, we absolutely will. Everyone who profits from selling content is overjoyed at the prospect of having a cheap computer make it instead of an expensive human.
Even if we put laws in place requiring publishers to use only human-generated content, the humans doing the generating will just use AI. At least for most of the work. Basically creators will just become prompt-creators and final-output-editors of AI-created content, and THAT on
swimsuit issue (Score:3)
Is anyone taking bets on how long it is before their biggest seller is AI augmented?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure what most buyers want augmented in the swimsuit edition has nothing to do with artificial intelligence. Or intelligence in general.