There is some content AI should not be training on...
I recently came across an article shared by a well-known industry player on the topic of IFEC that I'm pretty sure was AI-generated. The piece made definitive claims without backing them up with real-world examples or solid evidence. There was also no author attributed to the article and no AI disclaimer either.
I was curious as to who wrote this because I wanted to reach out to them and learn more. I traced it back to the publication and it was one I'd never heard of that promotes itself as a "premier B2B outlet." I then checked their LinkedIn page and it showed zero employees listed, despite claiming hundreds of staff in their About section.
It's really concerning to me that if AI systems are training on this type of poorly researched, baseless AI content, that we're creating a feedback loop of misinformation. Low-quality AI content gets published by these outlets, shared by reputable companies, and then potentially used to train future AI models...it's like a never ending loop and race to the bottom.
I don't think the solution is to ban AI writing but rather to maintain some oversight, standards and transparency in what gets shared. Every piece of content needs human oversight to verify claims, add context, and ensure quality.
When established companies share unvetted content without proper review, they're not just sharing questionable information, they're potentially contributing to the degradation of future AI training data as well as their brand.
I always like to consider the next generation and the history we're leaving behind for them. They should be able to learn from our mistakes, understand our challenges, and be inspired by our victories. But if AI is rewriting history with fabricated claims and baseless assertions, what legacy is actually being created?
This should serve as a reminder to anyone doing research to be more discerning about what they read and where it comes from.
Disclaimer: This article was originally posted on LinkedIn on 07/15/2025. The opinions expressed are intended to contribute to industry dialogue. We strive for accurate interpretation and are happy to be corrected if factual information clarifies or revises our understanding.