/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

← → days · ↑ ↓ browse · Enter similar · o open

After Futurism found major errors in an AI-written “fact-checked” CNET article, CNET updated almost all its AI pieces as currently being reviewed “for accuracy”

Futurism Jon Christian

Discussion

  • @jon_christian Jon Christian on x
    CNET added this gigantic correction to one of its AI-generated articles after we reached out with some questions about its accuracy 🫠 https://twitter.com/...
  • @kpottermn Kyle Potter on x
    Handing the reins over to AI to write content that could cost people serious money, lead them into credit card debt or financial ruin is a choice. https://twitter.com/...
  • @jon_christian Jon Christian on x
    @Kantrowitz I think a human writer would have gotten a “hey man are you okay? is there anything we can do to help you avoid all these errors?” approximately 70 drafts ago
  • @tedgioia Ted Gioia on x
    CNET is now letting an AI write error-filled articles for its site—but is trying to keep it secret. Welcome to the future of journalism. https://futurism.com/...
  • @farhip Paul Farhi on x
    Turns out robots aren't much better at reporting than humans are, as a tech site has learned. ⁦@CNET⁩'s AI disaster. Latest by me: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
  • @stefthepef Stef Schrader on x
    Just hire real people, for Pete's sake. Hire people! Actual humans who know the subject matter. https://futurism.com/...
  • @matthewkeyslive Matthew Keys on x
    Red Ventures' CNET said its AI-generated articles go through an editorial review process before they are published. But some articles contained so many errors that they've now been put under a separate review. https://futurism.com/...
  • @parismarx Paris Marx on x
    Good analysis of the CNET's articles “written” by an AI. @Jon_Christian found the financial advice was bad and often wrong, setting up people with low financial literacy to be even worse off. The whole plan is all just to chase higher rankings on Google. https://futurism.com/...
  • @jakeswearingen Jake Swearingen on x
    It seems inevitable that generative text AI models will get blended into journalism, but this is an excellent example at how to do it badly: 1) Don't be transparent 2) Use text AI for tasks it's not great at, like math 3) Let major errors from the AI slip past editors https://twi…
  • @techwontsaveus @techwontsaveus on x
    “We couldn't help but notice that one of the very same AI-generated articles that Guglielmo highlighted in her post makes a series of boneheaded errors that drag the concept of replacing human writers with AI down to earth.” — @Jon_Christian https://futurism.com/...