It seems very dishonest, and an example of the sort of thing that makes people oppose the use of LLMs.
I would think that most people who want to see LLMs widely used would be opposed to this kind of effort, even if only to avoid bringing more opposition to bear against them.
As a former journalist and current PR professional, I'll say this is a brilliant way to destroy your clients' credibility in one fell swoop. If I were a journalist and I received an AI-generated pitch, I would immediately disregard the source. If a PR agency successfully fooled me into thinking a quote was from a human, and I found out later that the quote was AI-generated, I could never trust any statements from that PR agency or any of its clients again.
A journalist should not, under any circumstances, use an AI-generated "quote" in a news story. It's not an actual quote from an actual source, because no human being actually said it. It's just a jumble of words that doesn't actually express anyone's opinion or judgment. An AI-generated statement has no authority, because it doesn't represent anyone's expertise and no one is staking their reputation on the accuracy of the statement. And if you're a PR client, letting an LLM speak for you strikes me as reckless. If you're talking to the media, it should be to establish your own expertise and knowledge, not a chatbot's.
I may be applying too high a standard here. Looking at the "Clients Results" section, these quotes are getting placed in low-level filler articles that are mostly marketing, and no one expects these to be hard-hitting journalism. Heck, all these articles could be entirely AI-generated. But these kinds of marketing filler articles have very low credibility, so I'm very skeptical of the PR value of being quoted in them.
4 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 33.8 ms ] threadI would think that most people who want to see LLMs widely used would be opposed to this kind of effort, even if only to avoid bringing more opposition to bear against them.
A journalist should not, under any circumstances, use an AI-generated "quote" in a news story. It's not an actual quote from an actual source, because no human being actually said it. It's just a jumble of words that doesn't actually express anyone's opinion or judgment. An AI-generated statement has no authority, because it doesn't represent anyone's expertise and no one is staking their reputation on the accuracy of the statement. And if you're a PR client, letting an LLM speak for you strikes me as reckless. If you're talking to the media, it should be to establish your own expertise and knowledge, not a chatbot's.
I may be applying too high a standard here. Looking at the "Clients Results" section, these quotes are getting placed in low-level filler articles that are mostly marketing, and no one expects these to be hard-hitting journalism. Heck, all these articles could be entirely AI-generated. But these kinds of marketing filler articles have very low credibility, so I'm very skeptical of the PR value of being quoted in them.