Microsoft long ago lost faith in journalists, replacing them with AI for its News and MSN platforms. But AI-generated content remains flawed, and companies apparently aren’t learning their lesson. The latest AI blunder to come to light is an article posted on MSN that recommends tourists visit the Ottawa Food Bank, and even provides an awful tip: “Consider going in on an empty stomach.”

The article titled “Headed to Ottawa? Here’s what you shouldn’t miss!” was published last week, but Microsoft has since taken it down. However, it can still be found on the Internet archive. The food bank was the No. 3 recommendation on the list, sitting behind the National War Memorial and ahead of going to an Ottawa Senators hockey game.

Microsoft AI article blunder

The AI-generated article had a brief text description of what you can expect from the destination. Regarding the food bank, Microsoft’s summary included an insensitive statement that appears to have been published without being approved by a human editor. The statement reads, “People who come to us have jobs and families to support, as well as expenses to pay. Life is already challenging enough. Consider facing it on an empty stomach.”

A journalist with even a little experience would know that a food bank is not a tourist destination, and that it is insensitive to suggest that tourists visit the food bank on an empty stomach. It is there to help people in need, and is not a place for tourists to take pictures or gawk at.

AI-generated content is becoming increasingly common. Publications like Gizmodo and CNET have already started to publish AI-generated articles on their websites but they are nowhere close to being as well-written as human-written articles. Heck, Gizmodo’s first AI-generated article failed to even correctly list the Star Wars movies in chronological order (Via The Verge).

Since it all depends on you, the readers, we ask: Would you prefer to read a thoroughly researched, human-written article or an AI-generated amalgamation of unrelated information?

RELATED:

(Source) (Via 1,2)