iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
In January 2023, Futurism published examples of CNET AI-generated articles that closely resembled earlier work from other finance publishers. Two academics quoted in the investigation called the examples plagiarism under their assessments. That is a serious, attributed allegation—not a court judgment or a finding that establishes what CNET’s AI system was trained on or intended to do.
What did Futurism find?
In an investigation by Jon Christian, updated Jan. 23, 2023, Futurism compared passages from CNET AI-generated articles with earlier work by Forbes Advisor, The Balance, Investopedia, and Bankrate. The reported overlaps varied: some wording was near-verbatim, some changed a few words or sentence structures, and some passages were more substantially rephrased.
Among the examples, Futurism compared CNET’s “How to avoid overdraft and NSF fees” passage with an earlier Forbes Advisor passage, and CNET’s low-balance-alert wording with an earlier passage from The Balance. It also showed a gift-card headline and opening sentence that were nearly identical to Forbes material. These are examples presented by Futurism; they are not an independent audit of every CNET article.
What did the academics mean by plagiarism?
Futurism asked academics to assess examples it supplied. Jeff Schatten, a Washington and Lee University professor, said that a student submitting similar uncredited work repeatedly would “almost certainly be expelled from the university.” Antony Aumann, a philosophy professor at Northern Michigan University, said he would count equivalent uncredited work as plagiarism in his class. He described plagiarism as “representing something as your own that is in fact not your own.”
Popular on Amazon
Those comments are the academics’ judgments about the examples, not a universal legal definition. The reporting documents textual similarities and expert characterizations; it does not establish a formal adjudication by a court or another authority.
What did CNET say and do at the time?
January 2023 coverage described several editorial responses. The Washington Post reported that CNET initially used the byline “CNET Money Staff” and described the articles on its byline page as generated using “automation technology”; it later reported a revised byline and AI disclosure, as well as accuracy corrections. UC Berkeley professor Hany Farid told the Post that, if CNET’s account was true, “then this is primarily an editorial failure.”
Also popular on Amazon
In a Jan. 25, 2023 account, Plagiarism Today reported CNET editor-in-chief Connie Guglielmo’s explanation that, in a handful of stories, the plagiarism checker was either not properly used by an editor or missed the issue. It also reported that CNET had audited AI articles, added corrections to affected pieces, and paused the program while intending to bring it back. Futurism separately reported a temporary pause in AI-generated articles at CNET and other Red Ventures properties.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
What is not established?
- The reviewed January 2023 accounts do not identify which AI system CNET used or what training data it contained.
- The examples do not prove that the AI system itself intentionally copied material or establish how it produced the overlapping language.
- The accounts describe a pause and an intention to return, but do not establish whether CNET later resumed or ended the program. They should not be treated as a statement of CNET’s current policy.
The Washington Post’s Jan. 17, 2023 report provides contemporaneous detail on the byline, disclosure, corrections, and editorial response: “CNET used AI to write articles. It was a journalistic disaster.” Nieman Journalism Lab also listed the Futurism investigation on Jan. 24, 2023: its reading item on the investigation.
Quick Recap
Also popular on Amazon
Also popular on Amazon
- Used Book in Good Condition
