More editors have spoken out against AI
Following last month’s blog, I've come across more editors speaking out against AI content that I thought it was worth broaching the subject again and reiterating the impact of pushing through AI.
Last week Christian May, editor-in-chief at UK business publication City AM, wrote on LinkedIn:
"🚨 AI slop has to stop 🚨
I'm staggered by the amount of AI-generated op-eds and articles being submitted to City AM.
Senior figures from top agencies, businesses and cultural institutions are pitching articles that have clearly been written by AI. We run submissions through AI detection software, and while that isn't infallible the truth is we can just tell.
How has this become acceptable?
Alys Denby, Anna Moloney, Steve Dinneen and Adam Bloodworth are hot on this, and they flag submissions to me throughout the day - many of which come from people and places that really should know better.
We're *this close* to naming and shaming.
City AM values external contributions from experts and we want your expertise and insight. But we also your voice, and we will never be a dumping ground for your AI slop.
Have some respect for yourself, your client, for our readers and for us."
----
This was quickly followed by City AM deputy comment and features editor Anna Moloney who said on LinkedIn:
"TLDR: Please STOP filing AI copy!
Today, as is becoming all too common, we were left with a gap in the opinion pages due to a promised op-ed being written entirely by AI. Luckily, I felt inspired to fill it myself.
Checking copy for AI (though it's almost always immediately obvious) has quickly become a core, but unloved, part of my job. To save everyone's time, please know that if you file AI copy, we won't publish it – and in the time all that back and forth took you could have just written the piece yourself!
The ironic thing about AI slop is that it isn't sloppy at all: it's polished until slippery – all meaning just melts away.
I'd actually far rather receive actual sloppy copy that I, per my job, can edit than another 600 words of grammatically perfect word froth."
This is her City AM article on the matter.
Two paragraphs from the above piece stood out to me (in case you can’t read it):
"The truth is simple, if you can’t be bothered to write it, why should anyone be bothered to read it? It’s insulting but, more than that, it’s depressing. Writing, especially in opinion, is about individual voice: how you turn a phrase, the anecdote only you can tell, that odd word you might have picked up from a well-loved novel.
If you think you can fool us, I’d urge you to think longer-term, not just for us but yourself. Not only are there material costs – we are extremely unlikely to trust you enough to commission you again – but ethical ones. Trust in the media is already at an all-time low; making it a dumping ground for your Claude castoffs is unlikely to help."
----
So, like I said in my last blog, sending over AI content is harming your relationship with journalists. By using an LLM for your thought leadership posts, written comments, and so on, you’re actually increasing your chances of never working with that publication again.