> When reached for comment, a B&H representative claimed the company’s policy was not to use AI-generated content and that it would “investigate this matter with our content teams.” Shortly thereafter, the article and profile were deleted. But for a month, the story remained online and positioned itself as an expert guide written by a real person and visitors to the blog would have been none the wiser.
Seems like a slight non-story to me: a parsimonious explanation here is that a staff (or contract) editor was given an assignment, and chose to fabricate it instead.
(A more interesting tidbit about B&H: their sales tax hijinks are legendary[1], and significantly predate Amazon's.)
Seems like a slight non-story to me: a parsimonious explanation here is that a staff (or contract) editor was given an assignment, and chose to fabricate it instead.
(A more interesting tidbit about B&H: their sales tax hijinks are legendary[1], and significantly predate Amazon's.)
[1]: https://www.dpreview.com/news/4007164682/bh-photo-accused-of...