Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    nvc
    nvc is offline Restricted Account
    Join Date
    September 2022
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Do you test your copywriters for AI content?

    Hi there,
    I recently started testing my copyrwriters for AI content and found the texts 1 of them to be too much AI. I am using the Originality.ai tool. Do you trust that tool and if yes what are your observations?
    I am not against AI but don't want to upload 100% AI content on my sites. Or if it is AI I am not willing to pay $7-8 for that service..
    What do you think?

  2. #2
    PaulEchere's Avatar
    PaulEchere is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    June 2020
    Posts
    559
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked 174 Times in 135 Posts

    Default

    Guess there might be some truth in that kind of analysis, however you likely can never know for sure, perhaps sometimes it might be a complete falsepositive.
    Imo in most cases random content writers picked up at places like Fiverr will always use AI tools to create at least (best case scenario) the carcass of your future post or the entire post.

    In my experience, whenever I create content for someone else (and I think that's a good practice in general), we agree on what degree of AI usage is acceptable. We also agree on the exact topics and discuss a potential draft candidate (when it's ready) before submitting the final version. That's how I see good paid content creation is done, though that would usually cost a bit more, of course.

  3. #3
    chaumi is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2013
    Location
    East Midlands
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    503
    Thanked 779 Times in 569 Posts

    Default

    If I use the best AI generation tool I know to create an article, it will take:

    Approx 30 mins to 1 hour to prepare the outline (dependent on topic)
    Approx 15 mins to line it up and generate
    At least 4 hours subsequent work - amending, adapting, improving. Maybe more.

    It will cost less than a dollar in creation cost. But obviously a lot more in time. But it'll be good, and I'll be happy with it.

    So, if your supplier is doing anything like that, then $7-8 sounds hugely reasonable. Indeed, vastly undercharged.

    But I expect they're not doing that.

    With the best tool I know, if they are just giving it a subject and hitting enter, and sending it to you without further editing, it will likely cost them less than a dollar. But still a bit of time setting it up, making sure it's completed, looks reasonably OK with no totally obvious hallucinations or inaccuracies, getting it into a doc and sending it. Maybe 15- 30 minutes. In which case, you might argue $7-8 is fair.

    ******

    I haven't used Originality.ai, but it is supposedly one of the better AI testers.

    I would imagine false positives are entirely possible with it.

    But personally, I don't care what a tool says. And 1. I don't think Google does either, 2. I don't think users care...provided the information that's being presented is useful, well-presented, and answers the query.

    *****

    I can pretty much guarantee that any purely AI-generated piece won't (in the vast majority of cases) be good enough to meet those needs at the level of complexity and understanding necessary for most gambling-related topics.

    But a carefully engineered, edited, improved, enhanced piece? Yes.

    Knowing how to engineer, edit, improve, enhance is crucial. The AI won't do it on its own. If you don't know how to do that/don't have the time, then it's likely that 'rubbish/bland/suboptimal' AI content will not be helping your site, or if it is then there's a chance it won't be helping at some point in future. Maybe the very near future.

    *******

    If you want trustworthy content, provided by companies with a demonstrable history and vested interest in operating at the highest quality levels, just look up users Juan Roman and Themilann (plus one or two others here that I've never worked with, Topboss would be a good example).

    ********

    I will end by saying...everything I said is based on current status. I have little doubt that within a year, maybe two, there will be (close to) zero need for any human writer or editor. And the AI will be clever enough to out-write 99.9% of human writers with minimal to zero input, editing, and enhancement.

    But that's the future.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to chaumi For This Useful Post:

    AussiePunter (18 December 2023), DaftDog (6 December 2023), dannyx (7 December 2023), NoDepositCasinos (11 December 2023)

  5. #4
    DaftDog's Avatar
    DaftDog is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2008
    Location
    Your kitchen.
    Posts
    2,060
    Thanks
    651
    Thanked 738 Times in 440 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chaumi View Post

    But personally, I don't care what a tool says. And 1. I don't think Google does either, 2. I don't think users care...provided the information that's being presented is useful, well-presented, and answers the query.
    I agree 100%.

  6. #5
    onlinebetdotcom's Avatar
    onlinebetdotcom is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    May 2023
    Location
    Bogota
    Posts
    310
    Thanks
    164
    Thanked 62 Times in 56 Posts

    Default

    You should also test your content writers after you hire them.

    I've hired someone many months ago and their first 2 articles were amazing. The next 3 produced were as bad as if someone translated it 3 or 4 times using Google translate back into English. I think they copied other website content and used spinning tools.

    You always have to stay on top of your writers because they will cut corners if you allow them.

  7. #6
    DanHorvat's Avatar
    DanHorvat is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Location
    Actual location may vary.
    Posts
    1,951
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    1,367
    Thanked 1,303 Times in 769 Posts

    Default

    It's ironic that you're resorting to AI to test if another human used AI.
    Backlink building and bespoke white hat SEO service available. PM for details.

  8. #7
    Oliver Cooper's Avatar
    Oliver Cooper is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    January 2022
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 38 Times in 31 Posts

    Default

    It all depends on how the copywriter processes the text from the AI. If he really did a great job of choosing the request and generating the correct information, then why not?

  9. #8
    Juan Roman's Avatar
    Juan Roman is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2013
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    165
    Thanked 242 Times in 169 Posts

    Default

    We have used quite a few of those tools and I can honestly say they are all very unreliable. Hope they will be perfected in the future, but, at the moment, they are very inconclusive.

    We go out of our way to check all the content we receive from our writers (in-house and freelancers) to ensure it is not only high quality but also 100% human, and yes, some writers do use AI, which we do not tolerate.

    But, at times, it is their word against yours as anti-AI tools cannot be trusted at all. The Content Editors nowadays really have their work cut out for them as they need to go by their feeling and evaluate whether the latest article matches that writer's usual style or there is a possibilty the writer may have used AI for parts of it.
    • Teamwork - iGaming content & localisation services. Shortlisted for Best Digital Agency at 2024 iGB Affiliate Awards.
    • Pokie Machines
    • Hiring native writers with iGaming experience.

  10. #9
    dannyx is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2019
    Posts
    658
    Thanks
    129
    Thanked 168 Times in 135 Posts

    Default

    This topic will not be topical in a few months, maybe longer, when AI will produce much better texts than a great writer.

    There are posts on GPWA from 2015, for example, but probably many others too as many people wrote that Google Translator is weak and human translation will always be better. The result is that for 2023 translations on some language pairs are much better than a human translator.

    For all the people here, these are big changes, but think what they will be for, say, today's 12-year-old who will enter this world in a few years.
    For him, the writing of texts by creators as well as translation by translators will be seen in the same way as for us the times of ancient Rome.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dannyx For This Useful Post:

    chaumi (7 December 2023), Strider1973 (8 December 2023)

  12. #10
    universal4's Avatar
    universal4 is offline Forum Administrator
    Join Date
    July 2003
    Location
    Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway. John Wayne
    Posts
    31,627
    Thanks
    3,591
    Thanked 8,649 Times in 5,510 Posts

    Default

    Could anyone that answered yes to the initial question answer:

    Do you not trust the writers you hired to do what you are paying them for?

    Rick
    Universal4

  13. #11
    Strider1973's Avatar
    Strider1973 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    415
    Thanks
    297
    Thanked 258 Times in 175 Posts

    Default

    Times have changed.

    Just hire someone where you explictly ask them to have AI write the text, and to proofread them. Agree on an hourly pay.

    The times of 2-3c/word articles are gone. AI can write better text. Cost to create a text have come down 10x. And sorry for all those professional translators - that's like becoming a horse saddle maker 100 years ago.
    "Semper paratus!"
    My BTC Address: 1F11EJvSAab5vMQgGWGQMASr9T7LCkZjvb

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Strider1973 For This Useful Post:

    DanHorvat (8 December 2023)

  15. #12
    Juan Roman's Avatar
    Juan Roman is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2013
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    165
    Thanked 242 Times in 169 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by universal4 View Post
    Could anyone that answered yes to the initial question answer:

    Do you not trust the writers you hired to do what you are paying them for?

    Rick
    Universal4
    Of course not. I'd like to trust them, but it is our job not to. If we trusted every single one of our 100+ freelancers (and I know most are much better than those working for other agencies), then what what is the point of quality control?

    The new generations do not want to work hard but rather use shortcuts such as AI, and of course I do not trust them to produce 100% human texts.

    My life would be so much easier and we would earn a lot more money if we didn't thoroughly check every single piece of content we received before sending it to our clients, but that's not the way I want to do business.
    • Teamwork - iGaming content & localisation services. Shortlisted for Best Digital Agency at 2024 iGB Affiliate Awards.
    • Pokie Machines
    • Hiring native writers with iGaming experience.

  16. #13
    Mattbar's Avatar
    Mattbar is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    July 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,209
    Thanks
    108
    Thanked 832 Times in 514 Posts

    Default

    I check for AI content but the tools are not great and there are false positives. Many of my writers have been working for me for 5-10 years and they very much know what I want and they deliver. It wouldn't be worth their while to copy AI in content but of course I don't mind them using it for research as part of many research tools.

    That said I am checking content to be on the safe side but I would not accuse a writer before seeing several positive results and reading the text myself comparing with older work. I would need to be absolutely certain before accusing a writer that has worked for us for 5 years of using AI content. To date I have not yet had an issue with this.

    Another point is we actively try to produce content that AI couldn't or would really struggle with. AI is getting better all the time though so it is a constantly changing landscape but for now I am happy that the regular writers we use are all above board - so yes I trust them.

  17. #14
    Giorgos Manousos's Avatar
    Giorgos Manousos is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2023
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    7
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    I try to write the text for our project myself, but sometimes I give this mission to other writers because of workload. After receiving their works, I check the text for AI content percentage. Most often it is minimal, but even if the figure is 30% - 50% I can still accept the text if it is well written and fully discloses the topic. As for Originality.ai - sometimes I check articles that I write myself through it. Sometimes it shows 20% - 30% AI in my texts, although I didn't use them. I think this is because AI learns from such texts that experts write themselves and tries to repeat it. I wouldn't say that using AI is very bad, but if you give a task to a person who just generates text with AI and gives it to you and you pay for it, it's a bad situation. Then you should change the rater or do the generation yourself (it will save your budget)

  18. #15
    DanHorvat's Avatar
    DanHorvat is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Location
    Actual location may vary.
    Posts
    1,951
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    1,367
    Thanked 1,303 Times in 769 Posts

    Default

    I supppose people who are worried about AI shouldn't use AI to check for AI, but instead get a human to have a look at it.

    It doesn't matter if the copy was written by a human who can't write, or by AI. If it looks meh then it's useless either way.

    If you're reading a good casino review or a good slot review, you'll know it.

    I'd say this situation is forcing content writers to either up their game, or go flip burgers.
    Backlink building and bespoke white hat SEO service available. PM for details.

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DanHorvat For This Useful Post:

    Giorgos Manousos (11 December 2023), Strider1973 (9 December 2023), universal4 (8 December 2023)

  20. #16
    Randy Ray's Avatar
    Randy Ray is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2016
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Posts
    62
    Thanks
    166
    Thanked 57 Times in 26 Posts

    Default

    I haven't found an AI tool that recognizes human-written content versus AI-written content with any kind of reliability. That shouldn't be the bar, anyway -- I've met plenty of human "writers" who couldn't write as well as ChatGPT. But I generally want stuff better than ChatGPT produces, anyway. It's not hard to spot AI-written content after spending a little time with these tools and recognizing how these robots write stuff.
    Randy Ray

    A good traveler has no fixed plans and is not intent upon arriving. -Lao Tzu

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Randy Ray For This Useful Post:

    DanHorvat (8 December 2023), universal4 (8 December 2023)

  22. #17
    NoDepositCasinos's Avatar
    NoDepositCasinos is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2022
    Location
    Colombia
    Posts
    552
    Thanks
    89
    Thanked 177 Times in 150 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nvc View Post
    Hi there,
    I recently started testing my copyrwriters for AI content and found the texts 1 of them to be too much AI. I am using the Originality.ai tool. Do you trust that tool and if yes what are your observations?
    I am not against AI but don't want to upload 100% AI content on my sites. Or if it is AI I am not willing to pay $7-8 for that service..
    What do you think?
    How much do you consider as "too much AI"? AI testers are not completely reliable and generate many false positives (like everything else, I suppose they will improve over time), and a lower AI content percentage increases the likelihood of errors.

    To answer your question, I do not verify that every article from the writers I work with is free from AI-generated content. I only check if something seems off.

    From my perspective, If I use AI tools, I don't see why to criticize someone else who does the same as long as the work meets the quality criteria. I am paying for a finished article with certain characteristics, and (in my case) the method the person used to create it is not one of them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •