/
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

A writer who works for a tech company describes how he helps train AI models how to write, by making up pretend responses to hypothetical chatbot questions

Journalists and other writers are employed to improve the quality of chatbot replies.  The irony of working for an industry … Mastodon: @michellemanafy@journa.host . X: @timkendall_path , @rosenzweigjane , and @martyswant LinkedIn: Mark Little , Elke Schwarz, PhD , Jason Bissell , and Peter Llewellyn Mastodon: Michelle Manafy / @michellemanafy@journa.host : “Indiscriminately learning from data produced by other models causes ‘model collapse’ - a degenerative process whereby, over time, models forget the true underlying data distribution.”  Enter the professional writers, who are feeding AI “gold standard” responses... https://www.theguardian.com/ ... … X: Tim Kendall / @timkendall_path : A clear explanation of AI's voracious thirst for human created content and knowledge. That demand is generating work for human creators, and may never be slaked. Humans are always needed and not replaced. The same may be true of computational pathology. https://www.theguardian.com/ ... Jane Rosenzweig / @rosenzweigjane : “humans in the loop” has quickly moved from an assurance that humans will always play a key role in thinking/writing to euphemism for “humans are required to help AI companies make money” (this, from Guardian piece on writers who are being paid to improve LLMs, link below) [image] Marty Swant / @martyswant : Lots of great thoughts/lines in this @guardian story about the irony of writers improving LLM-powered chatbots. https://www.theguardian.com/ ... [image] LinkedIn: Mark Little : “It is like being paid to write in sand, to whisper secrets into a slab of butter.  Even if our words could make a dent, we wouldn't ever be able to recognise it.” … Elke Schwarz, PhD : “Every machine is expansionistic, that is to say, imperialistic; each creates its own service- and colonial empire. … Jason Bissell : “secret sauce” behind these celebrated models relies on plain old human work.  —  Thought provoking article asking what is the relationship between human and Ai … Peter Llewellyn : In The Guardian today, here's something to think about #medcomms - maybe we'll be seeing some new jobs for #freelance #MedicalWriters 🤔 …

The Guardian Jack Apollo George

Context & Ripple Effects

Earlier coverage showed AI text generation reducing demand for some human-written work while also creating lower-paid editing work to make machine output sound human. This report identifies a more upstream role: writers are producing the reference-quality material used to shape chatbot behavior.

That reliance matters because the corpus frames indiscriminate reuse of model-generated data as a route to degradation. It also complicates the idea that writing tools simply replace authors: a prior account found a style-generating LLM’s output often felt hollow or approximate, while this work pays humans to supply the missing standard.

First-order effects

  • Writers and journalists gain paid work creating hypothetical question-and-answer examples that companies can use to improve chatbot responses.
  • AI companies become more dependent on curated human-authored responses rather than relying solely on material generated by models themselves.

Second-order effects

  • The new training role extends the job shift already visible in copywriters’ lower-paid work humanizing AI text: writing labor is redistributed from commissioned output toward editing and training inputs.
  • Demand for high-quality human material can raise the value of specialized contributors and quality-control workflows, even as broader AI publishing expands the volume of synthetic text.

Third-order effects

  • If this pattern persists, model quality will increasingly depend on a managed supply chain of human expertise, making content provenance and evaluation a core operating capability rather than a one-time training task.
  • The industry may split further between abundant generated text and scarce trusted human reference material, especially as AI-generated books and personalized articles spread across the internet and create more synthetic input to filter.

The trend: Generative AI is turning human-authored content from a finished product into an ongoing production input for model training, evaluation, and reliability.

Discussion

  • @timkendall_path Tim Kendall on x
    A clear explanation of AI's voracious thirst for human created content and knowledge. That demand is generating work for human creators, and may never be slaked. Humans are always needed and not replaced. The same may be true of computational pathology. https://www.theguardian.co…
  • @rosenzweigjane Jane Rosenzweig on x
    “humans in the loop” has quickly moved from an assurance that humans will always play a key role in thinking/writing to euphemism for “humans are required to help AI companies make money” (this, from Guardian piece on writers who are being paid to improve LLMs, link below) [image…
  • @martyswant Marty Swant on x
    Lots of great thoughts/lines in this @guardian story about the irony of writers improving LLM-powered chatbots. https://www.theguardian.com/ ... [image]