CNET's AI Experiment: Controversy Over Accuracy in Automated Journalism
Brief news summary
CNET faced backlash after revealing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in generating many of its articles, which the company termed an "experiment." Issues arose when inaccuracies were found, leading to the need for corrections. One notable error was an article that incorrectly stated a $10,000 deposit at a 3% interest rate would yield $10,300 in a year, when in fact, the correct figure was $300. Following a review by Futurism, CNET admitted to the flaws in its AI-generated content. Initially attributed to the "CNET Money Staff," the company later clarified the role of human editors in the process, emphasizing that AI was meant to assist, not replace journalists. Critics raised concerns that relying on AI could undermine journalistic integrity and accountability. This incident highlights essential questions about AI's role in media, especially when compared to organizations like The Associated Press, which have successfully integrated AI while upholding high editorial standards.Last week, internet investigators found that CNET had discreetly published numerous articles entirely written by artificial intelligence, prompting the tech site to confirm this but label it as an experimental approach. However, the experiment has revealed shortcomings, as the AI-generated content has proven less effective than anticipated. Following criticism from Futurism regarding significant errors in these articles, CNET began attaching correction notices, acknowledging inaccuracies in several AI-produced stories. For instance, a piece erroneously claimed that a $10, 000 deposit at 3 percent interest would yield $10, 300 in a year, when the correct amount is actually $300. CNET and its sister site, Bankrate, have expressed concerns about the reliability of the AI-generated content published since November, stating they are currently reviewing these articles for accuracy and will correct any identified errors. The implementation of AI in journalism has stirred worries about its impact on human reporters, particularly given AI's efficiency in generating content without the need for breaks or salaries. Initially, CNET attributed machine-written work to "CNET Money Staff, " only revealing it was produced by "automation technology" upon scrutiny from Twitter users. After the backlash, the site adjusted bylines to "CNET Money" and clarified that these articles were "assisted by an AI engine" and had undergone thorough editorial review.
Experts, like UC Berkeley's Hany Farid, suggest that the compelling nature of AI writing might have caused editors to exercise less scrutiny compared to human-generated content. While AI-written articles generally resemble those created by humans, they lack flair and individuality. This experimentation occurs amidst broader discussions on the implications of advanced AI technologies, with some educational institutions considering bans to prevent misuse. CNET's editor, Connie Guglielmo, characterized the AI application as an experiment designed to support reporters rather than replace them. CNET and Bankrate have committed to reviewing their AI-assisted articles for inaccuracies, recognizing that human error also plays a role in journalism. Other news organizations, like the Associated Press, have previously used AI with caution to supplement their reporting, aiming to safeguard their credibility as they navigate this technology.
Watch video about
CNET's AI Experiment: Controversy Over Accuracy in Automated Journalism
Try our premium solution and start getting clients — at no cost to you
