AI vs Humans: Artificial intelligence, or human hands? That’s the question at the center of a recent controversy surrounding articles published on Reviewed, a website owned by Gannett, the parent company of USA Today. Several articles appeared on the platform, and their authorship raised eyebrows among Reviewed staff.
No one seemed to recognize the names associated with the bylines, and attempts to verify their existence, such as finding LinkedIn profiles, proved fruitless. Moreover, the quality of the content raised suspicions about whether artificial intelligence (A.I.) might be behind these articles.
Around 40 employees at Reviewed suspected that A.I. was indeed responsible for the content, and they ran some of the articles through A.I. detection programs, which confirmed their doubts. One A.I. detection program, Winston AI, determined that three articles had a “zero percent human score,” suggesting they were likely not written by humans.
Another article received a 1 percent human score. One of the zero percent human score articles was a guide on portable trampolines, and Winston AI indicated that “It is highly probable that an A.I. text generation tool was used.”
Also Read: IBM Surpasses Q3 Expectations, Shows Strength in Software and AI
However, Gannett has strongly denied the use of A.I. in creating these articles. The company’s spokesperson stated that the content in question was created by third-party freelancers hired by a marketing agency partner, not A.I. Nonetheless, they acknowledged that these reviews had not been properly labeled as being written by third parties and didn’t meet their editorial standards.
The dispute has led to calls from the writers and editors at Reviewed for all such articles to be retracted, and they demand an apology for the use of a third party instead of their own work. Despite their protests, Gannett appears to be standing firm.
This incident sheds light on the ongoing debate about the role of A.I. in content creation and its potential impact on human jobs. As A.I. technology becomes more accessible, concerns about the possibility of automation replacing human writers have grown. The Reviewed Union is making a stand, asserting that they will not allow their work to be supplanted by A.I. and emphasizing the importance of workers sharing in the benefits of new technology rather than risking job loss.
The dispute has taken on added significance, with accusations of union-busting by Gannett. The company has denied this allegation and expressed its commitment to negotiating fairly and in good faith. As the debate unfolds, the future role of A.I. in content creation and the rights of human workers in the digital age remain under scrutiny.