According to their website, Publications owned by GAMURS Group include:

Destructoid

The Escapist

Siliconera

Twinfinite

Dot Esports

Upcomer

Gamepur

Prima Games

PC Invasion

Attack of the Fanboy

Touch, Tap, Play

Pro Game Guides

Gamer Journalist

Operation Sports

GameSkinny

  • Leigh@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is fucking gross. There’s no one who thinks people will read the mass shit they pump out.

    • AineLasagna@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot of sites like these are already just click farms with “articles” consisting of a headline and a couple poorly-researched sentences. Switching to AI probably won’t significantly change the quality of what they’re churning out.

      • Leigh@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right. That’s why searching for anything on the internet SUCKS these days. The results are all just filler bullshit.

    • Nullroad@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Something to keep in mind is that these companies aren’t concerned with total profit or revenue or anything like that - it’s all about the percentage. I suspect in the short term, these AI-articles will look very profitable. Networking effects, consumer habits, and SEO will carry the day for a time.

      But what always screws these MBA types is the inability to recognize the specific natures of their business and the second order effects. Not all costs are representable on a spread-sheet.

      Basically, the second order to me really boils down to this: AI generated content isn’t really a ‘brand’. Good writing shops tend to build a following with their writers and expectations with their editors. The writing, investigative, and editorial bent of a house is essentially what makes a shop. See The Economist and The New Yorker as examples. In other places, a lot of niche shops are selling personality as much as product with youtube, podcasts, and others.

      this means there is no real ‘value add’ someone like an AI shop can provide. You are throwing yourselves down the hole of becoming a pure commodity, and as every business major knows, being a commodity sucks. Short term profitable, but literally no one cares about where a mass produced nail comes from and its a race to the bottom of price.

      So, as time goes on, with the barrier for entry being incredibly low, every bill and joe who fancies themselves an SEO wizard has no reason to not jump in, so your competition rises and your ability to charge some value for (ads?) drops a lot. But that’s the tip of the iceberg. Many of the companies that would occupy this brandless, commodity-filling space are way better positioned to make a run at it than the GAMURS Groups of the world. Microsoft’s Bing chat and (probably soon to follow Bard) will whip your ass in the long-game. Why search Bing to get an AI article from the Escapist when Bing will do it for me? I really doubt anything churned out by an AI with some edits will be that much better per convenience.

      This whole could easily collapse in on itself. Like a lot of people in the AI space, I’m interested to watch what happens when AI begins to consume and be built on its own content.

      • Leigh@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Basically, the second order to me really boils down to this: AI generated content isn’t really a ‘brand’. Good writing shops tend to build a following with their writers and expectations with their editors. The writing, investigative, and editorial bent of a house is essentially what makes a shop. See The Economist and The New Yorker as examples. In other places, a lot of niche shops are selling personality as much as product with youtube, podcasts, and others.

        Yep. This is why I’ve been a paying subscriber to Ars Technica for over a decade. You’re exactly correct. Ditto with NPR.

  • JZshark@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Considering how many blogs are just AI generated garbage now, it doesn’t surprise me that the big players are looking to automate their articles.

    The issue is that AI can’t really create… it just remakes what it already knows and has seen before. No hot takes. No new ideas. Just whatever has been done before.

    Hopefully this isn’t the new way everything goes…

    • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Also, Chat GPT at least still writes at the level of a somewhat talented ninth grader. Its prose is stilted, and the way it structures essays and stories is super formulaic.

      It’s absolutely not at the level it can replace a talented human writer yet. (I have no doubt that day is coming, probably sooner than we think, but it’s not here yet.)

      So publishers making the switch will see the quality of their content drop, and with it the number of clicks / revenue they get. Enough to offset the salaries of all the writers they fired? Probably depends on the publication. For clickbait farms, probably not, but the higher quality the readers are used to the more the publishers stand to lose.

      • megahbite@dataterm.digital
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t commit to anything either, its writing is absolutely full of weasel words and a detached perspective.

        • phi1997@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Writing is harder than reading. For example, compare the writing in a children’s book to something written by a child

        • DrWeevilJammer@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          54% (130 million) Americans read BELOW the equivalent of a 6th grade level.

          A lot of the reason for this is chronic underfunding of K-12 ESL programs in southern states and California.

      • ArugulaZ@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve been to Destructoid. They don’t hire talented human writers. They barely hire human writers.

      • psudo@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, I feel like a mildly talented 9th grader is around as good as my writing ever got, so I think it’s understandable that’s about as good as you’re likely to see for awhile from AI generated text.

  • Plume (She/Her)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Destructoid; The Escapist; Siliconera; Twinfinite; Dot Esports; Upcomer; Gamepur; Prima Games; PC Invasion; Attack of the Fanboy; Touch, Tap, Play; Pro Game Guides; Gamer Journalist; Operation Sports and GameSkinny.

    Noted. I’m officially starting a “not reading your crap” list.

  • JakeBacon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder if this will end as poorly as that eating disorder hotline that did the same thing.

  • Cylinsier@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    The enshitification of the internet continues. How can we offer our content, but without having to pay anyone for it and at a much higher rate of delivery? By not giving a fuck about the quality anymore and not having any real competition so people have no choice. Except people always have a choice. We can walk away.

    • Pegatron@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see why people would even go to a site to read AI generated articles and be bombarded with ads. I could just ask an AI to write an article for me? Just cut out the middle man at that point.

      • interolivary@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t see why people would even go to a site to read AI generated articles and be bombarded with ads.

        Doesn’t have to be voluntary on the user’s part. Maybe they clicked a link on Google? Or maybe a site they’ve been reading for ages suddenly switches to “AI editors” and it’s never really announced to the users in a clear way

      • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The sites don’t mention the AI authorship, so you go there to read an article, likely one you found linked elsewhere, only to be baffled by the ramblings.

  • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Any service looking to replace human writers with ai is positioning itself for failure once generative ai becomes more mainstream. Once your average Joe can ask a native phone app for anything they want, the Only value of written text will be the human element.

  • Den_The_Grem@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    This may be a little tangential, but does anyone know of any game news sites with RSS feeds that have talented writers working for them? Some of the sites I’ve followed for years have been regurgitating Twitter opinions more and more, and it makes finding thoughtful (or just plain informative) articles far more difficult.

  • Grimace@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just don’t see ChatGPT being capable enough quite yet. These articles are going to be low quality, written in the same voice, and filled with factual errors. Not to mention released at a volume that nobody will bother to keep up with. Seems like self destruction on their part.

    • parrot-party@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      An AI writer is always going to be trash. AI can’t experience anything, only remix preexisting content. So it’ll always be a regurgitation of what others have posted. But if we keep cutting out humans, then it’ll eventually be nothing content on repeat.

      • Kaldo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is also always a chance that it’s simply going to be wrong, ML cannot differentiate what is the truth or not. We see it happen with easy mistakes that people wouldn’t make and it’s going to be even worse when they get used for something more nuanced or complex.

      • Wiredfire@kayb.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course it’ll be trash. Quality isn’t the goal, just bulk with the aim of getting maybe fewer views per article but pumping out so so many that it’s more views, or rather ad impressions, overall with much lower cost.

        Problem is it’s shortsighted. Once those sources quickly get a reputation for trash quality folk will learn not to bother clicking through to those sources.

  • landsharkkidd@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know game journalists are memed on, but this is really disappointing. AI will eventually unravel and crap out because it’s regurgitating AI content.

    • alternative_factor@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can’t wait until The Escapist articles are all “Zelda Zelda Zelda Zelda ZeldaZeldaZeldaZeldaZeldaZeldaZelda Zelda Zelda Zelda Zelda Zelda”

    • greenskye@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Will it eventually be AIs at the marketing firm telling the execs that their ads are successful because the AIs on the other side are ‘reading’ it for new training data on how to better optimize viewer attention span? Just two Ad companies paying each other back and forth?

  • Kichae@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    These generative models are only capable of regurgitation. They’re fed content, and they come up with statistical distributions of words and phraes in their training data to sample. But they’re still just chopping up other people’s copyrighted work and gluing it together.

    This gets into generic “you can’t copyright individual words” territory when dealing with very common topics, but when you get into niche topics, the training data gets sparse, and the distributions stop allowing for creating something new.

    And they can’t extrapolate beyond their data. All models break down once you leave the boundaries of the data.

    So, any articles generated by these things about something new are either going to be trained on too small a data set to avoid lawsuits, or just be incredibly factually wrong.

    And if they’re publishing reviews of new games that are full of factual errors, they could get sued for defamation.

    This is just stupidly risky on their part.