from the guess-that-AI-experiment-didn't-work dept.
The future of Sports Illustrated looked dire Friday after the publisher of the diminished outlet announced mass layoffs because its license to use the iconic brand's name in print and digital was revoked:
The Arena Group — which had been roiled by reports that the fabled magazine published AI-generated content — admitted to failing to make a $3.75 million quarterly licensing payment to Authentic Brands Group due this week.
As a result, the publicly-traded Arena announced Thursday it would make a "significant reduction" in its workforce of more than 100 journalists.
SI's unionized workers received a memo Friday telling them "some employees will be terminated immediately, and paid in lieu of the 60-day applicable notice period under the [union contract]."
[...] The outlet's website had a smattering of fresh stories Friday, suggesting a skeleton crew was still employed.
Meanwhile, SI's annual Swimsuit edition – which launched the careers of supermodels from Cheryl Tiegs to Tyra Banks – has been completed and will be released in the spring, a source close to the situation told The Post.
Also at NBC News, CNN and HuffPost.
Related: Sports Illustrated Published Articles by Fake, AI-Generated Writers
Related Stories
They were asked about it, and they deleted everything:
There was nothing in Drew Ortiz's author biography at Sports Illustrated to suggest that he was anything other than human.
"Drew has spent much of his life outdoors, and is excited to guide you through his never-ending list of the best products to keep you from falling to the perils of nature," it read. "Nowadays, there is rarely a weekend that goes by where Drew isn't out camping, hiking, or just back on his parents' farm."
The only problem? Outside of Sports Illustrated, Drew Ortiz doesn't seem to exist. He has no social media presence and no publishing history. And even more strangely, his profile photo on Sports Illustrated is for sale on a website that sells AI-generated headshots, where he's described as "neutral white young-adult male with short brown hair and blue eyes."
Ortiz isn't the only AI-generated author published by Sports Illustrated, according to a person involved with the creation of the content who asked to be kept anonymous to protect them from professional repercussions.
"There's a lot," they told us of the fake authors. "I was like, what are they? This is ridiculous. This person does not exist."
[...] The AI content marks a staggering fall from grace for Sports Illustrated, which in past decades won numerous National Magazine Awards for its sports journalism and published work by literary giants ranging from William Faulkner to John Updike.
But now that it's under the management of The Arena Group, parts of the magazine seem to have devolved into a Potemkin Village in which phony writers are cooked up out of thin air, outfitted with equally bogus biographies and expertise to win readers' trust, and used to pump out AI-generated buying guides that are monetized by affiliate links to products that provide a financial kickback when readers click them.
What's next? Six-fingered AI-generated models for the swimsuit edition?
Related:
- The AI Hype Bubble is the New Crypto Hype Bubble
- OpenAI Has Released the Largest Version Yet of its Fake-News-Spewing AI
- Inside the Secret List of Websites That Make AI Like ChatGPT Sound Smart
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2024, @01:15AM (9 children)
https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2023/05/15/kim-petras-featured-2023-si-swimsuit-cover-model [si.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2024, @01:35AM (7 children)
You missed the really scary bit, another of the models is none other than Martha Stewart.
Yes, the convicted inside trader, that Martha Stewart.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2024, @01:50AM
Get woke, go broke.
(Score: 5, Funny) by driverless on Monday January 22 2024, @01:51AM (4 children)
Personally I'm waiting for the National Geographic swimsuit edition.
(Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2024, @02:52AM (2 children)
Are they using AI to recreate Helen of Troy?
What about that 13 year old Indonesian boy who "feels like" he is the reincarnation of Cleopatra, will NatGeo be sponsoring his identity affirming surgery, or just doing a photo documentary after? Can you imagine when the National Enquirer purchases NatGeo and revises their editorial direction?
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday January 22 2024, @01:46PM (1 child)
Might Cleopatra have been trans all along? Might that boy finally have been re-incarnated with the right gender?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2024, @03:17PM
Considering reincarnation passes through various species, some of which are hermaphrodite, some of which change gender with age, I would assume that human to human reincarnation should have some measure of gender adaptability.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Monday January 22 2024, @02:25PM
Swimsuits?? Pfft. For decades, Nat Geo has been the premier rag for topless!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2024, @03:21PM
> the really scary bit, another of the models is none other than Martha Stewart.
I think this [si.com] says more about SI's aging reader demographic than anything else.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Monday January 22 2024, @09:28PM
As per Robert Conquest and innumerable others, dying organizations always veer leftist in a desperate attempt at the end. Every time. Its part of the corporate death process or corporate hospice process. Its very unusual not to see this happen.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Revek on Monday January 22 2024, @02:58AM (11 children)
Is the second I tune out and go find something real.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 5, Interesting) by khallow on Monday January 22 2024, @06:01AM (10 children)
What I think is particularly nutty is that in 2019, the Authentic Brands Group bought the magazine and then proceeded to license/rent it to Arena Group (formerly theMaven). So sounds like ABG thought they could coast along on the $15 million a year license fee (the 10 year contract would have been an ample $150 million return). Well, that didn't work. It's interesting how much ownership changes and weird contracts there are of failing businesses and brands. I wonder if anyone has done a study of this scavenger ecosystem.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rich on Monday January 22 2024, @09:23AM (9 children)
I don't see where there's any public benefit of granting the possibility to "sell a brand". Remember, the public is generous enough to protect a brand for an owner, the public doesn't have to. The purpose of a brand is supposed to be to identify the origin of a product, but as it is now, it's outright deceitful. A publicly protected brand should be tied to people and/or locations.
I have a "Steinberger" brand bass guitar, but it's got nothing to do with Ned Steinberger, who once sold his name to Gibson. But heck, it's got nothing to do with Gibson gutars either. In reality it should say like "Wuxing Ding Dong Musical Instrument Co. Ltd." (or such) any maybe "made under authority by Gibson Holdings under design patent licence from Ned Steinberger" in small print. And it's not that Wuxing Ding Dong make bad instruments, I love it, and I would buy from them again (as opposed maybe to "Hunan Woodchip Processing Co. Ltd.", who have previously delivered necks made of low quality chipboard). Right now you've got to go on the forums to figure out that MAYBE "Gibson switchted from Ding Dong to Woodchip in 2018, so look out for that."
(Score: 2) by gtomorrow on Monday January 22 2024, @11:54AM (2 children)
Okay, now you're just making stuff up. "Wuxing Ding Dong Musical Instrument Co. Ltd."? "Hunan Woodchip Processing Co. Ltd"?? Really?!
(Score: 3, Funny) by hendrikboom on Monday January 22 2024, @01:49PM
Wood chips are less likely to be contaminated with covid-19 virus than exotic meat.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Rich on Monday January 22 2024, @09:24PM
Well, almost, but I outsourced my need for placeholder examples to "Yunnan Kunming Lucky Dragon Company Name Mfg. Co. Ltd." ;)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday January 22 2024, @02:26PM (5 children)
Would you want your very existence dependent on someone's belief and perceptions about public benefit? At some point, we have to accept that it's probably not a good idea to base all our actions on one person's feeble perceptions of public benefit. And even if there were an objective, totally agreed upon definition of public benefit, I'm not interested in orienting all our activities around that. Absolute utilitarianism is just another paperclip optimizer.
Here, selling a brand is not that big a deal. The old owners can compromise the integrity of the brand just as easily as the new. And it's not rocket science to figure out when a brand no longer meets expectations no matter the owner.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2024, @03:02PM (1 child)
>And it's not rocket science to figure out when a brand no longer meets expectations no matter the owner.
That depends very much on the product.
Something like a magazine is low investment - buying one bad issue (or even one year's half worthless subscription) isn't so damaging.
I brand-dumped AT&T when they sent me a 3x jacked up bill as compared to the previous month, didn't pay the bill either - unless you count answering the bill collectors' ineffective calls.
Something like a home appliance.... it takes some time to determine things like weak paint, faulty wiring, etc. Both Maytag and Speed Queen "were" good brands that we had the misfortune of purchasing their products shortly after they cheaped out.
Automobiles of the early 2000s, brands like BMW and Mercedes, started changing internal parts like valve covers, oil pans, etc. from cast aluminum to plastic. How many owners do you think know that their formerly 20-30 year durable cars are now virtually guaranteed to be un-economic to repair after 15?
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2024, @12:30AM
(Score: 2) by Rich on Monday January 22 2024, @10:07PM (2 children)
Have you lost your marbles? In theory, that "existence" already is either dependent on the ultimate-justice bearing belief of the majority of voters, or the immortal-wisdom bearing belief of the single dear leader (or the politburo). So there would be no choice, we're all subject to it. In practice, the representatives are bought up by lobbyists. Are you implying you prefer the involved laws to be made by those who purchase politicians in order to line their pockets even fatter? Or are you hoping that a majority of cuckservative subs will think "it's ME, ME, ME, who'll get the dangling carrot" and vote for "yes, screw me harder"?
Also, my existence doesn't hinge on anything like that. Right now, I trade under " Computertechnik GmbH". No one would be hurt, or suffer, if I had to switch the name to, say, "Leet Instrumentation R&D GmbH (formerly Computertechnik)" if I planned to sell the shop - and anyone (at least in continental Europe) would agree that this is rather sensible when I'm no longer with it.
(Score: 2) by Rich on Monday January 22 2024, @10:10PM
Sorry, missed the angled bracket HTML escaping. it's supposed to be "[my name] Computertechnik GmbH" and "Leet Instrumentation R&D GmbH (formerly [my name] Computertechnik)" in the example.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 22 2024, @11:57PM
Our existence isn't so dependent now though. And your very concerns are exactly the point I wished to make. When we start talking about public benefit, we need to remember there are some scary people eager to decide what is public benefit.
And really, branding isn't an urgent area where public benefit needs to be pursued. Brands come and go. My take is that as long as obvious lawbreaking isn't going on, it's fine if once famous brands go under.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2024, @09:12AM
Is that who he sings about in the theme song, Cheryl Tiegs?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stormreaver on Monday January 22 2024, @12:29PM (5 children)
SI is a men's magazine, and I think it's safe to say that SI's audience does not want to look at the bodies of men pretending to be women. I had all but forgotten about SI more than 20 years ago, so I wasn't aware of all the stupid things done by its management. If I had been aware, I would have immediately predicted its demise.
I expect AI to destroy more companies in the near future.
(Score: 4, Touché) by turgid on Monday January 22 2024, @12:58PM (4 children)
The male gaze is indeed optimised for passing the genes on to the next generation.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2024, @02:53PM
Yeah, and I'd expect a lot of "real men" SI readers to be pretty upset if they saw this spread [si.com] without knowing the background. Like, never buy another copy of SI upset.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BlueCoffee on Monday January 22 2024, @06:03PM (2 children)
Well yeah. Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end.
Even if men aren't immediately attempting to pass on their genes, men still want to look at beautiful sexy slim female bodies. Not men in women's clothing, nor women in swimsuits with bodies that resemble two exercise balls stacked on top of each other.
SI was promoting both to a 95% male audience.
The CEO and execs that went along with this woke junk should be black listed and never work again. Their job is to make money for the shareholders, not to push any kind of agenda. All they had to do is show pretty female models and SI would continue along.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2024, @12:08AM
Unless, of course, it isn't. Historically, even homosexuals often had kids. And it might be something like the gene for sickle cell anemia where one copy of a gene is beneficial (here, providing additional protection from malaria), and two copies isn't (sickle cell anemia). A slight tendency to homosexuality may actually be advantageous - such as providing sexual experience.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edinlinux on Tuesday January 23 2024, @02:40AM
Actually, it is now known why the 'homosexuality' gene in men do not get selected out over generations.
It is because the same gene when expressed in a woman (i.e. their sister(s)), makes them more promiscuous and they end up having more children than other women without the gene. The number of children born by these women exceeds the number of children not-born by their homosexual brothers, so the gene can continue from generation to generation without being selected out.
Fascinating stuff.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday January 22 2024, @09:26PM (1 child)
Whoa. Each journalist has to generate $150K/yr of value and they just can't do it. Oof.
My local independent-ish bookstore generates nearly $225K/yr/employee of sales, in comparison. Interesting to think that a bookstore cashier generates 50% more value than the typical journalist in 2024.
"Average revenue per employee by sector" is interesting to google for and compare. "SI Magazine" couldn't generate $150K/yr. Some public utilities generate over $600K/yr in revenue per employee... "IT" in general is over $800K.
An interesting comparison of productivity is SI "journalists" can't generate $150K/yr of revenue, but McDonalds does just about that using uneducated untrained more or less unsupervised part time teenagers and illegals.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2024, @12:52AM
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Wednesday January 24 2024, @07:43AM
Another one for the list of "Headlines that would read very differently if the last word were omitted"!