from Darth Autocrat (Lyndon NA) | by Darth Autocrat (Lyndon NA)

. :: AI Content questions :: There's some solid thinking from @chrismoranuk in the linked to tweets, including a number of thoughtful and important questions. But I have some of my own... >>> #SEO #AI #GenerativeAI Via @badams t.co/F2HhJf0kKD

>>> How did something (several things!) with so many (known) issues get to go public? How comes these (potential) flaws were not declared upfront/immediately? Why were certain types of "prompts" permitted, (ones known to trigger "creative" responses) >>>

>>> Why were not attempts made to alert the user to verify/validate generated content (if not automate those checks)? Why are there questions regarding the content used by (some of) these tools? >>>

>>> How did certain sources get "approval" for inclusion, despite ownership/IP etc. being an established and largely aware-of concept? What efforts were made regarding filtering out "bad sources" (inc. those of poor taste/nature, inaccuracies etc.)? >>>

>>> Considering the nature of the output, and the structure of the data, why were sources (intentionally?) not tagged/incorporated? etc. etc. etc. We're not talking about a bunch of naïve, overly excited little script-teenies! We're talking established professionals! >>>

>>> We're not talking about some ad-hoc, multi-faceted, cellular/insulated setup with randoms chipping in here or there! We're talking structured, organised, well funded setups, with experienced people, in positions! >>>

>>> So ... I'm left with the big, broad questions! WHY!? Why is it, with this many brains were involved, this many experienced people, in various projects, permitted (encouraged?) to produce things with so many obvious/noted flaws, and to go public with them? >>>

>>> I have a horrid suspicion that the vast majority of specific/detailed questions ... can be easily answered by that Big "Why?", and I don't like a single one of the potential answers, esp. when you look at the companies and personalities involved!