Ni2A
Premium Casino Content Solutions
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2013
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 19
The conversation about AI watermarking is all around the corner.
It is again putting all of us in the same position: when AI came, people were in a confused state.
Most of them started using AI for their content. It was free, easy, and gave satisfactory general content. People started working with it, and day by day, prompting was changing. Everyone was trying to get better results. Some were using AI themselves and taking its help, while many others were changing their entire websites based on AI suggestions.
Everything was trial and error. Some succeeded, some were confused, and some were still figuring things out. After each Google update, strategies were changing.
Writing styles were taking very sharp turns; it felt like a roller coaster. Writers and managers were poles apart. They were speculating about results, but on what conditions?
The biggest challenge was for the clients who had always wanted original writing. They were paying hefty sum of money, yet the content continued to sound very artificially intelligent. Detectors used for checking AI were playing yet another game of charades.
Writers were whining that AI detectors gave variable results, yet clients were forcing them to use these tools. In this war, good writers were between jobs, and those who understood the sneak peek were winning the roles, as their work was fooling the AI detectors.
One of the most interesting things I noticed was how different the thought processes behind the content had become. Briefs changed, even clients who wanted AI-free content were using AI to create briefs and check the authenticity of the content. Writers were being crushed under the wheel of hardships.
Clients here are also not wrong; they are absolutely right. They only want good results, they want their websites to perform well and stand on good grounds. And many writers are creating their content through AI now because it seems easier. They are not checking the top-ranking pages, competitors' websites, missing points, facts on relevant websites, or current data. Everyone wants a shortcut to making money, and clients have to judge the quality of what they receive. AI is not necessarily bad. The judgement and purpose should be moral and genuine.
Now, after AI watermarking, reverse changes in the industry can be noticed. People have started looking for genuine writers once again.
The debate is still ongoing: AI or no AI in content? Some people argue that using AI is fine, but not blindly. You still have to put effort into the content. You have to add your own input.
Suppose that, before writing this post, I had given Claude or ChatGPT a prompt about it. How explanatory would that prompt have to be? How many times would I have to make changes to it? I am not using any data here, but would it convey the thoughts exactly as I am thinking them? The process, the story, the experience.
AI watermarking started only in August. The next Google update will have another story to tell. One thing I am sure of: human content with proper research will always win.
What are you all preferring for content now? I am inquisitive to know.
It is again putting all of us in the same position: when AI came, people were in a confused state.
Most of them started using AI for their content. It was free, easy, and gave satisfactory general content. People started working with it, and day by day, prompting was changing. Everyone was trying to get better results. Some were using AI themselves and taking its help, while many others were changing their entire websites based on AI suggestions.
Everything was trial and error. Some succeeded, some were confused, and some were still figuring things out. After each Google update, strategies were changing.
Writing styles were taking very sharp turns; it felt like a roller coaster. Writers and managers were poles apart. They were speculating about results, but on what conditions?
The biggest challenge was for the clients who had always wanted original writing. They were paying hefty sum of money, yet the content continued to sound very artificially intelligent. Detectors used for checking AI were playing yet another game of charades.
Writers were whining that AI detectors gave variable results, yet clients were forcing them to use these tools. In this war, good writers were between jobs, and those who understood the sneak peek were winning the roles, as their work was fooling the AI detectors.
One of the most interesting things I noticed was how different the thought processes behind the content had become. Briefs changed, even clients who wanted AI-free content were using AI to create briefs and check the authenticity of the content. Writers were being crushed under the wheel of hardships.
Clients here are also not wrong; they are absolutely right. They only want good results, they want their websites to perform well and stand on good grounds. And many writers are creating their content through AI now because it seems easier. They are not checking the top-ranking pages, competitors' websites, missing points, facts on relevant websites, or current data. Everyone wants a shortcut to making money, and clients have to judge the quality of what they receive. AI is not necessarily bad. The judgement and purpose should be moral and genuine.
Now, after AI watermarking, reverse changes in the industry can be noticed. People have started looking for genuine writers once again.
The debate is still ongoing: AI or no AI in content? Some people argue that using AI is fine, but not blindly. You still have to put effort into the content. You have to add your own input.
Suppose that, before writing this post, I had given Claude or ChatGPT a prompt about it. How explanatory would that prompt have to be? How many times would I have to make changes to it? I am not using any data here, but would it convey the thoughts exactly as I am thinking them? The process, the story, the experience.
AI watermarking started only in August. The next Google update will have another story to tell. One thing I am sure of: human content with proper research will always win.
What are you all preferring for content now? I am inquisitive to know.