ChatGPT and Caktus AI are two AI tools that have recently been gaining traction as potential solutions for the writing of online articles. These tools are able to generate content based on the input of a user, making the process of writing articles more efficient and reducing the amount of time and effort required. However, it is important to consider both the benefits and risks associated with using these tools in order to determine whether they are suitable for writing online articles. The primary benefit of using ChatGPT and Caktus AI for writing online articles is that it can save time and increase efficiency. AI tools can quickly generate content based on the user’s input and can reduce the amount of time and effort required for the writing process. This can be especially useful for writers who are on tight deadlines or have a lot of articles to write. Additionally, ChatGPT and Caktus AI are able to generate content with a greater degree of accuracy than a human writer, meaning that articles generated using these tools are more likely to be of high quality. Despite the benefits, there are also some risks associated with using ChatGPT and Caktus AI for writing online articles. AI tools are not able to generate content that is completely unique, and there is a risk that articles generated using these tools could be detected as plagiarised by search engines or AI writing detectors. Additionally, AI tools are not able to generate content that is tailored to the specific needs of a user. As such, the content generated by these tools may not be suitable for the purpose of the article and may require significant edits or rewriting. AI is rapidly transforming the way content is created for online articles. AI can generate content quickly and accurately, making it a desirable tool for generating online articles. However, the accuracy and quality of this content are not always guaranteed. According to S Hors Fraile (2022), AI still cannot match the level of accuracy and quality that a human author can produce. The technology is still limited by its inability to recognize complex information and nuances in language, which can lead to mistakes and inaccurate content. AI also struggles to produce content that is engaging and interesting, as it relies on predetermined algorithms and structured data. This can lead to repetitive and predictable content that lacks originality and creativity. Therefore, AI-generated content must be assessed and evaluated carefully to ensure accuracy and quality before publishing. The impact of automated content generation (ACG) on online article writing quality and standards is an important factor to consider in the digital journalism landscape. In 2016, KN Dörr conducted a study to evaluate this impact, which found that ACG had a significant influence on the quality and standards of online articles, with direct correlations to both the quantity and quality of the content. The results showed that ACG had a positive impact on the overall quality of the articles while providing a consistent and reliable output. This led to increased accuracy and consistency in the articles, leading to higher standards and better quality. Furthermore, the study found that ACG also had a positive effect on the speed and cost of online article production, allowing for faster production times and lower costs. Overall, the study concluded that ACG had a positive impact on online article writing quality and standards, providing a reliable and efficient production process. By using ChatGPT and Caktus AI, writers can quickly and semi-automatically create engaging online articles; however, as with any automated or collaborative methods, it is important to remember that the end result may not be up to the same level of quality as conventionally written content. Moreover, any articles written using AI should be thoroughly reviewed and edited by an experienced writer, as automated processes may be prone to errors, and may lack the expected depth and accuracy of a more experienced writer. The take-home message is that while automated and collaborative processes are becoming more commonplace, their use should not be a replacement for a creative and human approach to content creation.
Here’s the zinger: Up until now, everything that was written above was actually generated by Caktus AI. Now that has been established, here are my thoughts on having the technology write content on my behalf. Admittedly, it saved me a ton of time and effort as it generated the write-up above in just two minutes. However, upon reviewing Caktus AI’s work, I can safely conclude that it is still far from being a perfect “replacement” for yours truly. For starters, Caktus AI has a tendency to repeat its arguments in a repetitive manner, make minor grammatical errors, and reference outdated sources. While the AI is able to cite published academic studies, it doesn’t link to relevant and recent articles from online publications, so I had to add them myself. What this means is that you won’t be able to use the technology to write a direct follow-up on an existing story from before, although it can provide writers with a decent skeleton to save time. As you may have noticed from its paragraphs regarding ACG, Caktus AI did not recognise that the study cited conflicts with its initial arguments in this article. This has led me to believe that the technology still can’t really understand the content it’s fed, but spits out near-plagiarised answers instead. One strong point that it made is that while it absolutely requires human editing and intervention, AI models like OpenAI’s GPT-4 or student-focused models like Caktus AI can certainly provide assistance to writers in a semi-automatic fashion. It can’t completely replace people like me just yet, but it’s slowly getting there.
