Suggestion; remove AI writing in the reports

[Winnitude]

The latest update reads so strongly like AI writing that it loses credibility and leads to constant questioning while reading due to the inherent issues with AI models and reporting current events. Almost reads like an AI spam site. This wasn't that bad until the end which includes this lovely bit of text:

Including notes from the AI for the person posting directly in the report does not help read as credible when the same kind of proofreading required to catch hallucinations is the same to catch stuff like this. It just reads like a copy paste job from a chatbot that could have any number of subtle issues in it when some people rely on the reporting on this site.

 

[Torch]

The latest update reads so strongly like AI writing that it loses credibility and leads to constant questioning while reading due to the inherent issues with AI models and reporting current events. Almost reads like an AI spam site. This wasn't that bad until the end which includes this lovely bit of text:
View attachment 9085

Preparing and releasing these FREE reports and free videos Monthly and/or every time needed is shitload of work.

Pointing out a small and even embarrassing error politely is the right way to show appreciation for all the constant 24 a day attention and labor.

Including notes from the AI for the person posting directly in the report does not help read as credible when the same kind of proofreading required to catch hallucinations is the same to catch stuff like this. It just reads like a copy paste job from a chatbot that could have any number of subtle issues in it when some people rely on the reporting on this site.

Being petty is simply petty.

 

[Winnitude]

Pointing out a small and even embarrassing error politely is the right way to show appreciation for all the constant 24 a day work.


Being petty is simply petty.

It's not pettiness, I use AI tools pretty frequently, but on a site like this it undermines the reporting when the reports are being obviously written in the voice of a tool that is known for making errors, and pasting in blocks of text that don't even apply to the reader only adds to it by undermining any assumptions about proofreading quality.

"Preparing and releasing these FREE reports and free videos Monthly and/or every time needed is shitload of work."
This website has existed a long time before AI models existed. So its not necessary to the operation of the site. It is necessary to pump out increased quantity beyond what was possible before, but the question of quantity vs quality, and necessity of quantity, is an important one. The videos as they are looking identical to scam ads and videos immediately would make younger tech savvier audiences coming across them first write off DEFCON immediately as an AI spam site. Does this addition add to the publication or take away from it's credibility? Pumping out content should not be the express goal. Likewise with the shift in article quality and tone towards reading like any other AI generation with a DEFCON prompt. Does the increased capacity to pump out more reports make them more useful when they undermine trust at the same time?

 

[Publius]

It's not pettiness, I use AI tools pretty frequently, but on a site like this it undermines the reporting when the reports are being obviously written in the voice of a tool that is known for making errors, and pasting in blocks of text that don't even apply to the reader only adds to it by undermining any assumptions about proofreading quality.

"Preparing and releasing these FREE reports and free videos Monthly and/or every time needed is shitload of work."
This website has existed a long time before AI models existed. So its not necessary to the operation of the site. It is necessary to pump out increased quantity beyond what was possible before, but the question of quantity vs quality, and necessity of quantity, is an important one. The videos as they are looking identical to scam ads and videos immediately would make younger tech savvier audiences coming across them first write off DEFCON immediately as an AI spam site. Does this addition add to the publication or take away from it's credibility? Pumping out content should not be the express goal. Likewise with the shift in article quality and tone towards reading like any other AI generation with a DEFCON prompt. Does the increased capacity to pump out more reports make them more useful when they undermine trust at the same time?

The only thing I would say to this is this.
The scope and volume of data and reporting has vastly expanded for the site good or bad. Personally I don’t even try to keep up with all the world events or reports.
So I won’t judge them too harshly, if you don’t use AI you just as likely opening yourself up to grammar Karens.