For a fly-fishing media brand, AI-generated content concerns aren’t just about whether stories are “good,” but whether they’re trustworthy, legal and creatively taboo.
I am weeks away from finishing a Journalism and Media Communications degree and felt inspired to add to this. Businesses becoming reliant on AI and the Hunger Games-esque job market are literally keeping me up at night right now. But I just wanted to mention that even the education world is all over the place with this topic.
Some professors stuck to their guns and thankfully taught the value of traditional independent research, while others encouraged the use of AI to gather sources (NEVER to generate words, however). A few classes required us students to use it because AI is here now and likely not going anywhere in our lifetimes. We might as well try to understand it and incorporate it into our process. Their perspective was that it is just an incredibly powerful search engine tool like Google, yet more direct (which is debatable except when you’re trying to pass a class).
Professors, often working professionals, on either side of the debate were unable to offer much encouragement for the future of writing. Instead, they heavily emphasized being proficient in all forms of media to reach an audience, such as video, audio, etc. Readers’ critical thinking and personal ethics will define how we receive an overwhelming amount of underwhelming writing as AI becomes ingrained in society.
For publishers and businesses wanting to keep their credibility, there should be disclosures on published pieces that use AI to generate words or source material. To companies using AI regularly to insert their narratives into our lives (*cough*cough* hunting and fishing “content” companies *cough), we know you’re doing it, and we’re embarrassed for you.
Nick, we appreciate the context - it’s an increasingly complex topic. Keep writing those real words. I don’t think their value is going away anytime soon. ~Andrew
A gentleman who is by most measures a computer genius — he was a member of the small team that created Google Earth — told me recently that no one in the general public has any idea how disruptive AI will be over the next 5 to 10 years. He believes that AI will change our lives more than America’s ability to harness electricity changed our country over a century ago.
Whether or not the future proves him prescient, it’s important to set boundaries now rather than later. So when a fly fishing platform falsely passes off AI-generated writing as something that was created by their staff, we have to decide whether we can, and should, support that particular platform. From my perspective, that’s an easy call.
Thanks for this. As a writer, ceding authorship to AI—even just a fraction—feels the same as it would if I, as an angler, used it to make a fish picture bigger or better. Poseur stuff. Style will always beat slop. The minute I read something with a whiff of AI, I'm out. Give me something, like you say, with vitality, not just a probabilistic estimate of the most mediocre next phrase.
I agree with a lot of your points. Ai is a tool, just like photoshop. The problem is that where an artist sees efficiency, others see “cost effective”. Even the fact that we call it content (filler) is indicative of the continuous devaluing of creativity. I’m not sure where the bottom is, but we’ve gotta be damn close.
Your point about disclosure is an interesting one. I think that anything AI-generated should be labelled as such, but a lot of media and brands are hesitant to do that because there is a huge pushback against it from most people. It begs the question, why use it at all? Oh yeah... money.
I am weeks away from finishing a Journalism and Media Communications degree and felt inspired to add to this. Businesses becoming reliant on AI and the Hunger Games-esque job market are literally keeping me up at night right now. But I just wanted to mention that even the education world is all over the place with this topic.
Some professors stuck to their guns and thankfully taught the value of traditional independent research, while others encouraged the use of AI to gather sources (NEVER to generate words, however). A few classes required us students to use it because AI is here now and likely not going anywhere in our lifetimes. We might as well try to understand it and incorporate it into our process. Their perspective was that it is just an incredibly powerful search engine tool like Google, yet more direct (which is debatable except when you’re trying to pass a class).
Professors, often working professionals, on either side of the debate were unable to offer much encouragement for the future of writing. Instead, they heavily emphasized being proficient in all forms of media to reach an audience, such as video, audio, etc. Readers’ critical thinking and personal ethics will define how we receive an overwhelming amount of underwhelming writing as AI becomes ingrained in society.
For publishers and businesses wanting to keep their credibility, there should be disclosures on published pieces that use AI to generate words or source material. To companies using AI regularly to insert their narratives into our lives (*cough*cough* hunting and fishing “content” companies *cough), we know you’re doing it, and we’re embarrassed for you.
Nick, we appreciate the context - it’s an increasingly complex topic. Keep writing those real words. I don’t think their value is going away anytime soon. ~Andrew
There is no place for AI in spaces of creative beauty.
A gentleman who is by most measures a computer genius — he was a member of the small team that created Google Earth — told me recently that no one in the general public has any idea how disruptive AI will be over the next 5 to 10 years. He believes that AI will change our lives more than America’s ability to harness electricity changed our country over a century ago.
Whether or not the future proves him prescient, it’s important to set boundaries now rather than later. So when a fly fishing platform falsely passes off AI-generated writing as something that was created by their staff, we have to decide whether we can, and should, support that particular platform. From my perspective, that’s an easy call.
Thanks for this. As a writer, ceding authorship to AI—even just a fraction—feels the same as it would if I, as an angler, used it to make a fish picture bigger or better. Poseur stuff. Style will always beat slop. The minute I read something with a whiff of AI, I'm out. Give me something, like you say, with vitality, not just a probabilistic estimate of the most mediocre next phrase.
I agree with a lot of your points. Ai is a tool, just like photoshop. The problem is that where an artist sees efficiency, others see “cost effective”. Even the fact that we call it content (filler) is indicative of the continuous devaluing of creativity. I’m not sure where the bottom is, but we’ve gotta be damn close.
Your point about disclosure is an interesting one. I think that anything AI-generated should be labelled as such, but a lot of media and brands are hesitant to do that because there is a huge pushback against it from most people. It begs the question, why use it at all? Oh yeah... money.