by anon7000 on 6/9/25, 4:36 PM
AI generated web content has got to be one of the most counterproductive things to use AI on.
If I wanted an AI summary of a topic or answer to a question, a chatbot of choice can easily provide that for you. There’s no need for yet another piece of blogspam that isn’t introducing new information into the world. That content is already available inside the AI model. At some point, we’ll get so oversaturated with fake, generated BS that there won’t be enough high quality new information to feed them.
by paxys on 6/9/25, 4:29 PM
It's fascinating how creative these large AI companies are at finding ways to burn through VC funding. Hire a team of developers/content writers/editors, tune your models, set up a blog and build an entire infrastructure to publish articles to it, market it, and then...shut it all down in a week. And this is a company burning through multiple billions of dollars every quarter just to keep the lights on.
by pscanf on 6/9/25, 4:32 PM
People use AI to write blogs, passing them off as human-written. AI companies use humans to write blogs, passing them off as AI-written. :)
by joegibbs on 6/10/25, 1:52 AM
The problem with using AI for writing is that most of the time you're trying to convey some kind of information that the AI doesn't know. If your business has outperformed some metric, the AI doesn't know until you tell it. So unless you write a very long prompt with all the facts and data that you want to convey, you just get fluff. If you do that, you get pretty polished prose but it doesn't save you all that much time.
by jasonthorsness on 6/9/25, 5:12 PM
Is there an archive anywhere? People can argue to no end based on some whimsical assumptions of what the blog was and why it was taken down, but it really comes down to the content. I have found even o3 cannot write high-quality articles on the topics I want to write about.
by Powdering7082 on 6/9/25, 5:10 PM
Did the reporter reach out to Anthropic for public comment on this? They list a "source familiar" with some details about what the intended purpose was for, but no mention on the why
by jsemrau on 6/9/25, 5:20 PM
Up until a few weeks ago, my LinkedIn seemed to become better because of AI, but now it seems everything is lazy AI slop.
We meatbags are great pattern recognizers.
Here is a list of my current triggers:
"The twist?",
"Then something remarkable happened",
That said, this is more of an indictment of the lazyness of the authors to provide clearer instructions on the style needed so the app defaults to such patterns.
by jsnider3 on 6/9/25, 5:39 PM
We try things, sometimes they don't work.
by neya on 6/9/25, 5:02 PM
I can tell you this much - most people who are opposed to AI writing blog articles are usually from the editorial team. They somehow believe they're immune to being replaced by AI. And this stems from the misconception that AI content will always sound AI, soul-less, dry, boring, easy to spot and all that. This was true with ChatGPT-3xx. It's not anymore. In fact, the models have advanced so much so that you will have a really hard time distinguishing between a real writer and an AI. We actually tried this with a large Hollywood publisher in-house as a thought experiment. We asked some of the naysayers from the editorial + CXO team to sit in a room with us, while we presented on a large white screen - a comparison of two random articles - one written by AI, which btw wasn't trained, but just fed a couple of articles of the said writer on the slide into the AI's context window, and another which was actually written by the writer themselves. Nobody in the room could tell which was AI and which wasn't. This is where we stand today. Many websites you read daily actually have so much AI in them, just that you can't tell anymore.