absolutely not! fake expert commentary

What am I disapproving of today? Using AI to generate fake expert comment.

Earlier this year, Press Gazette found 27 experts quoted in articles who either do not exist, are impossible to track down/verify online or were not named in the first place.

I can't believe this even needs to be said, but if you work in PR, don't do this. And if you're a journo who has fallen for this, kick the tyres a little harder.

Agencies and news organisations sell trust, and this is best possible way to destroy it.

If you work in journalism or PR and you don't understand this, do the rest of us a favour and consider another line of work.

*Important caveat: PG's methodology seems less than perfect. They got it wrong on at least one of these examples (since removed), and some of the issues are more about low quality sources rather than outright AI slop.

But it's clearly an issue because media organisations themselves have acknowledged it and industry bodies for PR in the UK have launched a campaign against it.

In this line of work, facts are sacred and there is a very clear red line; The best possible synthetic prediction of a fact still doesn't cut it.

So pick up the damned phone and take some notes while an actual qualified expert says words at you.