AI articles need to end.

[Smurph]

Look I know some work has gone in to it by someone. But articles by different authors shouldn’t have the same tone. It just screams low effort, soulless, corporate garbage to me. People read these for the honest views of the author, warts and all. I would prefer seeing the raw version of the article. If you’ve got an opinion show some respect to the club and the readers to put the time and effort into writing it in your own words.

I know it's your opinion and I respect that, it's a bit over the top.

 

[Flash]

It's an opinion piece which drives traffic to the website. There's a lot in the article which is pretty valid with what is being displayed on the pitch.

I'm all for giving Sheehan the time he needs, it's hard to argue that performances have been very disjointed this season.

If it’s an opinion piece, whose opinion is it? Jackarmy.net? And I’d argue it has the opposite effect of driving traffic. Most people will stop reading as soon as they get a hint that AI is involved. People want to read from a human author, not read something that sounds exactly the same as the million different ai written articles that are polluting the internet.

 

[Swanjaxs]

AI is here to stay; embrace it. Chances are, it could help save your life one day.

 

[swansvalleyjack]

I'm underwhelmed with the current squad and style of play.

But on the AI articles, I'm not a fan tbh, I prefer incisive and objective fan input

But if an article is AI created under the brief of "Swansea fans lose faith as Alan Sheehan faces growing pressure over poor form"....then for balance shouldn't another AI brief be created eg " Alan Sheehan has a plan for Swansea and why fans are sticking with him"

I don't know what something like that would produce ...but I do like to see both sides - AI or otherwise

It "might" say that Sheehan is currently adopting a pragmatic approach with a newish squad ( many average and some not chosen by him) to ensure a decent safety net points wise - and then to let the brakes off for a stronger push for a play off place "

 

[Captain_Sham]

Ai is only as good as the questions its asked. I dont read any of the AI garbage this site.Its pi$$ poor.

 

[Smurph]

If it’s an opinion piece, whose opinion is it? Jackarmy.net? And I’d argue it has the opposite effect of driving traffic. Most people will stop reading as soon as they get a hint that AI is involved. People want to read from a human author, not read something that sounds exactly the same as the million different ai written articles that are polluting the internet.

It's the view of the author, you either agree with it or you don't. You may not like it, other people do.

Phil has clearly outlined how the article was written and I applaud those who make the effort to contribute to the website. It's easy to sit here and judge without making any effort.

 

[Smurph]

All those critiquing this article, have you thought about submitting one yourself?

 

[PSumbler]

Look I know some work has gone in to it by someone. But articles by different authors shouldn’t have the same tone. It just screams low effort, soulless, corporate garbage to me. People read these for the honest views of the author, warts and all. I would prefer seeing the raw version of the article. If you’ve got an opinion show some respect to the club and the readers to put the time and effort into writing it in your own words.

Its what it screams to you but the reality is it 's the opposite to that. For me we will continue to embrace this - its just an evolution to do so then the traditional "grammar check" that has been part of MS Word packages since they were formed

And I would guarantee that the positive feedback of adopting this as an approach far outweighs the negative, probably on a 10 to 1 basis (maybe slightly less) - I have spoken to many people who read articles now where they never did before (in fact they are people who I had no idea actually even looked at the site before)

Not everyone wants "warts and all" - that's almost what the limited characters of twitter is for

 

[PSumbler]

All those critiquing this article, have you thought about submitting one yourself?

Which anyone is fully entitled to do and they will be asked the same question of "do you want it structured via AI" - if the answer is no (which it rarely is) then it won't be.

 

[JackSomething]

I'm not offering to write anything for the site and it's not my site, so not criticising Phil for the decisions he makes.

Having said that, I enjoy writing and when I see something that's been fed through the AI structuring tools (and you can usually spot it within 1 paragraph), I immediately stop reading. If one of my team in work sends me something that has clearly been through the process and has that awful AI sentence structure, I send it back to them and tell them to do it again themselves.

I accept it's here to stay and I may well end up a Luddite fighting it, but it's currently pretty shit in terms of quality.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Personally I prefer reading articles where I can snort derisively at the writer’s complete lack of grammatical and indeed writing skills.

 

[monmouth]

Personally I prefer reading articles where I can snort derisively at the writer’s complete lack of grammatical and indeed writing skills.

Including absence of commas?

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Including absence of commas?

Maybe I should ask Chat GPT for help.

 

[legoman]

Personally I despise AI written material. It's another example of the modern "way" in that the younger generation have lost the ability to think for themselves. Heaven help the young folk leaving education in the next few years expecting to find jobs because many of the traditional roles may cease to exist. It's a worrying and lazy trend in my opinion. Sorry Phil, it might be 2025 but I don't have to like it.

 

[Smurph]

Went to Greggs earlier and a bloody Pterodactylus stole my sausage role.