When several articles were published last week on Reviewed, a USA Today-owned website that recommends products, something seemed off. No one at Reviewed recognized the signatures on the pieces.
Reviewed writers and editors began searching for the names, but had difficulty finding evidence, such as a LinkedIn account, that the people existed. The quality of the articles was also questionable. That’s when they began to wonder: did artificial intelligence write these articles?
Gannett, the parent company of USA Today, says no ai was used. About 40 people on Reviewed say yes.
Some of the articles in question were passed through artificial intelligence detection programs, which repeatedly found that some of them were not written by humans, a representative of the union representing staff members said in an email Friday. Reviewed.
One such program, Winston ai, found that three articles had a “zero percent human rating,” indicating that they were most likely not written by a human, according to the Union. Another had a human score of 1 percent.
One of the articles with a zero percent human rating was a recommendation for the best portable trampoline.
“Looking for the best portable trampoline can be overwhelming,” says review said. “Fortunately, this buying guide presents all the essential factors to consider when purchasing. “Regular use of a trampoline can help improve balance, coordination and agility.”
According to Winston ai, “It is very likely that an ai text generation tool was used.”
Not so, according to Gannett.
Lark-Marie Antón, a company spokesperson, said in a statement Friday that the articles in question had been “created by freelancers hired by a partner marketing agency, No ai“
Even so, Antón acknowledged that the reviews had not been properly tagged as they had been written by a third party.
“The pages were implemented without accurate affiliate disclaimers and did not meet our editorial standards,” it said, adding that updates to the articles had been posted.
Others were removed after an uproar by several Reviewed workers.
When asked about articles that Reviewed staff members had analyzed through artificial intelligence detection programs, Antón said the finding that they had not been written by humans was “unfounded.”
Reviewed’s writers and editors are asking that all articles in question be retracted and that the company apologize for using a third party for work they could have done.
“We’ve been told in very clear terms that that’s not going to happen,” Garrett Steele, search engine optimization editor for Reviewed, said Friday.
The outside company was AdVon Commerce, according to a union representing Reviewed staff members. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday afternoon.
As artificial intelligence has become easier to use in recent years, some companies and news organizations have experimented with the technology to create content. This has raised concerns from some writers that their work could be replaced by artificial intelligence.
The Revised Union said the X on Thursday that Gannett “will put profits before worker rights or journalistic integrity, which is why we are organized to fight this attack on unions and the public trust.”
“If ai increases productivity, we demand a fair share, not threats to our jobs,” the union said. “Workers deserve to share in the benefits of new technology, not risk being replaced.”
The New York NewsGuild, which represents the Reviewed union, said in X that the union members analyzed “will NEVER be replaced by ai”
He NewsGuild also said in X that the articles were a “transparent attempt by Gannett to bust unions by threatening journalists with the loss of their jobs” after Reviewed union members staged a two-day strike this month to protest a new contract.
Ms. Anton said Gannett’s anti-union charge was “patently false.”
He added: “Our leadership is focused on investing in our newsrooms and monetizing our content while we continue to negotiate fairly and in good faith.”
