Ars TechnicaWikipedia downgrades CNET’s reliability rating after AI-generated articles
Futurism report highlights the reputational cost of publishing AI-generated content.
Covidiocracy@arstechnica
How the mighty have fallen. Once upon a time, C|Net and news.com (which then became news.com.com) were some of the most reliable sources of tech news and reviews.
How the mighty have fallen. Once upon a time, C|Net and news.com (which then became news.com.com) were some of the most reliable sources of tech news and reviews.
Graywulf Dolfinson (Esquire)@arstechnica i was actually watching it while it happened. (Lurking, as you fellows call it.)
I'm still pissed about the fall from grace CNET had these past few years. If only someone better bought them (i.e. literally anybody but Red Ventures)
Pax Ahimsa GethenGlad to be part of the @wikipedia community that helps keep these "content" producers accountable.
Anyone who wants to help edit #Wikipedia but doesn't know how to begin should check out this recent tutorial by @molly0xfff :
Become a Wikipedian in 30 minutes
KanaMauna@arstechnica Uses AI to save pocketchange, burns billion dollars worth of reputation. Totally worth it.
ratfactor@KanaMauna @arstechnica The rate of burning up reputations for short-term profit right now is *breathtaking*.
Fahri Reza 🍉@arstechnica those articles are separate legal entities
Mr. MustacheAnd you think that those legal fictions and shell games make a pertinent difference when WE ALL KNOW that they are legal distinctions to protect shareholders and owners investments, not to improve the quality of their work?
Graham Sutherland / Polynomial@dozymoe @arstechnica snrk, I see what you did there
EdgeI’ve thought for years that CNET articles were bot-written.
johnny garbanzo@arstechnica i didn’t realize CNET was reliable to being with, they have so many ads on their site I thought they were just some SEO optimization farm
Spooky Frank@arstechnica I mean, the fact that they’re wrong should get them demerits. I couldn’t care less what they use to write.
Tanja (now moved to @@arstechnica as they should; LLM-generated articles just don't make any sense to begin with
Marc Criley@arstechnica I had CNET in my RSS feed for over a decade, finally dropping it a couple months ago as its "articles" became completely devoid of content. I honestly couldn't figure out what audience this vacuousness was targeting?
cohomology is FUN!@arstechnica “wrote a Wikipedia editor named David Gerard”
David Gerard@cohomologyisFUN @arstechnica and it was a year ago and they finally noticed lol
EthanRDoesMC@arstechnica gonna show my Gen Z side here but I genuinely do not remember cnet ever being reliable
Tormod HalvorsenGen X'er here, and I don't blame you. As far as I can tell, it's been at least 15 years (probably a bit more) since I trusted their content.
a Witty Name@arstechnica
Why did it take this long?
CNET has been practically useless for longer than 15 years. Ever noticed their product reviews are merely product specifications?
Most of their articles were not even originals.
Their podcasts were hosted by people who didn’t understand science and technology.
CNET had been churning out useless articles for years. They get even lazier by using computer automated services to generate articles.