Do you test your copywriters for AI content?

[nvc]

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?

[PaulEchere]

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.

[chaumi]

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.

[DaftDog]

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%.

[onlinebetdotcom]

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.

[DanHorvat]

It's ironic that you're resorting to AI to test if another human used AI.

[Oliver Cooper]

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?

[Juan Roman]

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.

[dannyx]

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.

[universal4]

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

[Strider1973]

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.

[Juan Roman]

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.

[Mattbar]

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.

[Giorgos Manousos]

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)

[DanHorvat]

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.

[Randy Ray]

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.

[NoDepositCasinos]

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.

[jiyahana]

Testing AI-generated content is crucial for quality control. While tools like Originality.ai assist, they aren't perfect. In my experience, a blend of human creativity and AI yields the best results, especially when using tools like Text Humanizer to refine the content and ensure it aligns with your brand's voice. Keep an open dialogue with writers about their AI use to maintain high standards.

[Karri]

Testing AI-generated content is crucial for quality control. While tools like Originality.ai assist, they aren't perfect. In my experience, a blend of human creativity and AI yields the best results, especially when using tools like Text Humanizer to refine the content and ensure it aligns with your brand's voice. Keep an open dialogue with writers about their AI use to maintain high standards.

Either use AI or a human writer. Using AI and then "humanizing" it just creates a mess.

[NoDepositCasinos]

Either use AI or a human writer. Using AI and then "humanizing" it just creates a mess.

For me, the problem is not even about creating a mess; I just do not see the point. If I am going to pay someone to create content, I am not interested in micromanaging them and testing whether they used a particular tool. It is much easier for me to write the content myself and save the headache.

I have been on both sides of the story and see writers as part of my team, whether they work with me regularly or not. I trust them, and if the result isn't good, I find someone else. I have no desire to add unnecessary work to my plate.