This approach is not better than nothing, it’s worse than nothing. Because now this bad article becomes part of the Google/Bing/etc. search ecosystem. ESPN is a trusted source, so it could even be cited on Wikipedia. Until it can be trusted to be as good as humans (if that ever happens), it shouldn’t be deployed.
How does AI work in this context? Is an artificial intelligence "watching" the match live and reporting on it, or is AI searching and summarizing (i.e., stealing) content created by humans who watch the match and post content about it on the internet? If AI is stealing, it's both an ethical problem and a sign that AI isn't very I yet. For underserved sports like women's soccer, there are many excellent commenters, podcasters, and writers out there providing excellent content--Sam Mewis, Tobin Heath, and Christen Press to name three whom I follow. They are not formally considered journalists (probably?), but couldn't ESPN pay one or more of them or others in the space as contractors to provide content that would actually be good and valuable to ESPN's subscribers and followers? Even at $1,000/hour, ESPN could get great match summaries that might drive traffic to their site instead of alienating fans, and for a pittance compared to their overall budget.
Speaking of genius AI's and the choices they make for us, google news' "For You" algorithm has decided, based on all the articles I've clicked on in the past, that I have an intense interest in Johnny Depp's teeth.
"I personally believe that AI will be very helpful and beneficial to the sports industry and the sports fan, and we're starting to see that." -ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro
I can see how it benefits the "sports industry" as he calls it. Interesting that he doesn't mention sports journalism at.
AP and some other outlets have been using software for years to cover high school sports -- basically a coach fills out a form, the software strings the facts into a passable story, someone reads it and its on the wire. Like the case here, those stories will capture the bare facts in plain sentences. They will not capture nuance, human interest, drama or any of the actual emotions we seek from sports. That doesn't make those systems useless or evil; it does mean everyone should be clear on what's possible, and what's not.
Sounds like social media, it's profitable because your users generate all the content for free. Get the coaches to do the work, we capture all the value.
About a decade ago I would have always argued that Robots programmed by humans would always be inferior, no matter how sophisticated their learning algorithms, they would always be prone to critical mistakes that require last minute judgement for decisions that programmers failed to consider, and the learning algorithms had yet failed to encounter.
Then Trump happened and through their ownership of all the big corporate business, the Regime programmed masses of emotionally uncontrolled people, including much of the mainstream press and media. It injected irrational COVID fear to sell untested drugs to fatten Wall Street returns, injected irrational climate crisis cult fear to sell new "green" technology to fatten Wall Street returns. And it injected Trump fear and hate to prevent him from stopping them from more of this fear-based exploitation of the non critical thinking masses that are so easily influenced and manipulated.
And now I support AI as the better alternative than humans because at least then both sides can scream at it together, instead of each other, for all the terrible decisions brought to us by the unethical and immoral self-serving programmers.
This approach is not better than nothing, it’s worse than nothing. Because now this bad article becomes part of the Google/Bing/etc. search ecosystem. ESPN is a trusted source, so it could even be cited on Wikipedia. Until it can be trusted to be as good as humans (if that ever happens), it shouldn’t be deployed.
How does AI work in this context? Is an artificial intelligence "watching" the match live and reporting on it, or is AI searching and summarizing (i.e., stealing) content created by humans who watch the match and post content about it on the internet? If AI is stealing, it's both an ethical problem and a sign that AI isn't very I yet. For underserved sports like women's soccer, there are many excellent commenters, podcasters, and writers out there providing excellent content--Sam Mewis, Tobin Heath, and Christen Press to name three whom I follow. They are not formally considered journalists (probably?), but couldn't ESPN pay one or more of them or others in the space as contractors to provide content that would actually be good and valuable to ESPN's subscribers and followers? Even at $1,000/hour, ESPN could get great match summaries that might drive traffic to their site instead of alienating fans, and for a pittance compared to their overall budget.
What, you mean...HIRE someone? That's not gonna boost our share price.
Speaking of genius AI's and the choices they make for us, google news' "For You" algorithm has decided, based on all the articles I've clicked on in the past, that I have an intense interest in Johnny Depp's teeth.
I'm sorry, are we suffering from a shortage of humans?
"I personally believe that AI will be very helpful and beneficial to the sports industry and the sports fan, and we're starting to see that." -ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro
I can see how it benefits the "sports industry" as he calls it. Interesting that he doesn't mention sports journalism at.
AP and some other outlets have been using software for years to cover high school sports -- basically a coach fills out a form, the software strings the facts into a passable story, someone reads it and its on the wire. Like the case here, those stories will capture the bare facts in plain sentences. They will not capture nuance, human interest, drama or any of the actual emotions we seek from sports. That doesn't make those systems useless or evil; it does mean everyone should be clear on what's possible, and what's not.
Sounds like social media, it's profitable because your users generate all the content for free. Get the coaches to do the work, we capture all the value.
Save money on hiring fewer reporters only to cause more headaches for your PR department? Bold strategy, ESPN.
About a decade ago I would have always argued that Robots programmed by humans would always be inferior, no matter how sophisticated their learning algorithms, they would always be prone to critical mistakes that require last minute judgement for decisions that programmers failed to consider, and the learning algorithms had yet failed to encounter.
Then Trump happened and through their ownership of all the big corporate business, the Regime programmed masses of emotionally uncontrolled people, including much of the mainstream press and media. It injected irrational COVID fear to sell untested drugs to fatten Wall Street returns, injected irrational climate crisis cult fear to sell new "green" technology to fatten Wall Street returns. And it injected Trump fear and hate to prevent him from stopping them from more of this fear-based exploitation of the non critical thinking masses that are so easily influenced and manipulated.
And now I support AI as the better alternative than humans because at least then both sides can scream at it together, instead of each other, for all the terrible decisions brought to us by the unethical and immoral self-serving programmers.
Man struggles to come up with an example of humans behaving irrationally, settles on "Fear of a deadly disease that killed millions of people."