The unfortunate truth about AI-written articles...

I'm gonna be real here.

As an editor, I have worked at times with writers who are stupider and less accurate than AI (they were not, in most cases, hired by me). Some of them have even "fallen upwards" to better jobs. Until it reaches the Skynet phase, AI will not complain about being rewritten or treated unfairly. And so, so many entertainment blog stories these days, let's face it, are a headline's worth of news tidbit surrounded by 250 words of filler.

If a company makes an editor just rewrite and fact-check AI-written articles, there's little downside for them, and little loss in quality. The overworked editors get more overworked, but maybe their skills also become more valuable, since a large number of "editors" out there just want to be on camera and don't actually know how to edit articles.

I'm not advocating FOR AI. I'm advocating for getting better writers and running better articles. But as long as companies don't want to pay more than, essentially, minimum wage for such things, why would the good writers come aboard?

Unless you pay them to be editors.

What ought to be a competitive race to the top, making the best quality publication, matters not, for the majority of those who click don't care about quality. So why should the content providers?