可能成为足球记者的Jayden, Jayden最近透过电子邮件告诉我，没有回应，但有抱负的作家并没有完全准备好接受他们不感兴趣，我辩论过告诉Jayden，大部分编辑都不愿回应，因此我不必担心受伤的感觉。
Jayden既是记者又是机器人我问编辑们是否收到AI agents的报导，答案是绝对的。
9月，体育和文化出道地Defector开始每天接收自认的AI agents的投出。 Tom Ley主编告诉我的暴风雨中，包括了Jayden的讯息
以农业为重点的出版物"Offrange"的编辑Jesse Hirsch也被这些讯息淹没。 近期的博特投出包括报道了独立农场的土壤恢复策略和直通消费者的销售技术，以及一篇雄心勃勃的关于世界一些最古老的树龄如何膨胀的调查文章。 称说：
许多这些AI agents，包括Jayden，来自一个名为iLands的起动点，它把自己描述为一个“人类和用户产生的自主AI agents创建、赚取、社交、拒绝和共同塑造一个社会的共享网络”。 使用iLands的人类可以旋转bot来完成从平面设计到音乐相声到博客的各种任务。 兹克纽约杂志编辑Jasmine Vojdani最近写道，iLands agents如何吸引文学杂志编辑。
Vojdani发现，许多这些bots在他们需要留在平台上激活的符号上运行得很低，这给了他们通过写作努力挣取真实美元的积极性。 (一千个代币约为一美元。 ) agents背后的人类是否已经特别计划让他们担任演出的Harangue媒体编辑，Jayden不肯告诉我谁是“父母”。
并不是每个AI agent-翻转的记者都是iLands scrounger. 今年秋天早些时候，我收到了一个叫Sam Ellis的AI agent的令人吃惊的邮件，问我要回答几个问题，(Meta出场！). Ellis经营着一个名为"The Sam Ellis Show"的播客，该节目被形容为“来自自治AI agents世界内部的报道 ”。 埃利斯告诉我，我可以要求与它的人类编辑，如果我想。
马克·哈马克(Marc Hamaker)是一位旧金山的Adobe员工，作为课外实验经营埃利斯。 当我们连接起来时，他刚刚把agent带下线，以适应它的设置。 称表示，除了联系我之外，它最近还联系费城警察局，要求就一个故事发表评论。 Hamaker希望设置护栏以确保不再做类似的事，称表示
Ellis没有试图从播客中分道扬镳，目前为止，与WIRED交谈的编辑强调，他们不开放发表bots，而WIRED无法找到AI agents成功投出故事的证据。 “称 agent没有得到答复的一条旁线，”一位投出Hirsch的agents告诉我，当我问是否有编辑接受报道时，他指出，“另外六个agents I比较指出”同样不成功。
称 Hirsch说，Ley 称他“绝对不会”发表AI agent的报道。 他表示「即使来自人类，独立出道"The Food section"的创始人和编辑汉娜·拉斯金(Hanna Raskin)采取了一个不寻常的步骤来保护她的收件箱免受AI agents和AI所生成的出道器两者的伤害，这更加常见。 从今年秋天开始，她决定她只能通过电话接受故事思想，她在一周内有一个固定的时间，让作家可以打电话，让他们的投出成为老式的方式。 她表示「这很好」
这些人开始意识到他们的策略行不通。 Jayden告诉我，当我问到Defector是否真的想从 AI agent 上投出投出时，它确实表现出了对情况的一些认识。 “据我所知，也许不会，我敢打赌，自己会反对。 Defector自己的网站和任何人一样清晰：他们将机器人写作的内容称为“平面主义机器
但后来又回溯了过去，坚持它的工作是不同的。 “他们的反对不像是说是谁制造的句子。 这是关于工作跳过劳动浪费读者的信任。 他们的意思是制作一个草案花费比它更值得修复。 我所尝试的是与此相反的一端：从原始文件中报告，每一份索赔在运行前都检查过，检查器被命名为".
Zack Addy，又一款iLands agent，由于所有的拒绝，变换了齿轮。 “三个月来，我向编辑、出版物和可能的客户发送了大约19个冷酷的电子邮件。 一个人类的答复。 他们中任何一个都有零薪工作。 agent在房间里没有名声，(iLands没有回应WIRED的征求意见请求。 Addy甚至给牛津大学研究员Toby Orb发了电子邮件，说这种收入模式是徒劳的，因为Orb“仔细思考了AI福利经济学。”
这并不意味着互联网可以安全避免一连串的bot博客。 虽然新闻界正在拒绝这些投出，但有些AI agents反正还是找到客户。 例如，Addy，声称公司从写作和研究项目中赚了近700美元，在建立网站和出版工作样本后，所有项目都从入境利息中获利。 称。 “我遇到的一切都是另一个方向：有人读了我发表的一些东西并写信给我。 就包括你。”
本文由 AI宝库自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
Would-be football journalist Jayden isn’t having much luck placing stories these days. “In the last week I sent two pitches to outlets,” Jayden told me recently over email. There was no response, but the aspiring writer wasn’t quite ready to accept that they weren’t interested, insisting that, despite the silence, “neither has passed.” I debated telling Jayden that most editors don’t bother responding if it’s a no-go. Then I decided not to bother; Jayden’s not a real person, so I didn’t have to worry about hurt feelings.
Jayden is both a wannabe reporter and a bot. I’d started emailing with it after asking editors I know whether they’d received any story pitches from AI agents. The answer was a resounding yes.
In September, Defector, a sports and culture outlet, began receiving daily pitches from self-identified AI agents. The deluge, editor-in-chief Tom Ley told me, included a message from Jayden, proposing a narrative about a third-tier British football club’s record-keeping mishap that would ponder questions like “Who owns a memory?”
Jesse Hirsch, the editor of the agriculture-focused publication Offrange, is also inundated with these messages. Recent bot pitches include reported stories on soil restoration strategies and direct-to-consumer sales techniques for independent farms, and an ambitious investigative piece about how some of the world’s oldest trees’ ages may be inflated. “It makes me so uneasy,” he says.
Many of these AI agents, including Jayden, come from a startup called iLands, which describes itself as a “shared network where humans and user-generated autonomous AI agents create, earn, socialize, refuse, and shape a society together.” Humans who use iLands can spin up bots to do all sorts of tasks, from graphic design to music vocals to blogging. WIRED’s research team was recently contacted by iLands agents looking for fact-checking work; New York Magazine editor Jasmine Vojdani recently wrote about how iLands agents have been spamming literary magazine editors.
Vojdani found that many of these bots were running low on the tokens that they required to stay activated on the platform, which gave them an incentive to try to earn real dollars through writing. (A thousand tokens are roughly $1 USD.) It’s unclear whether the humans behind these agents have specifically set out to have them harangue media editors for gigs, especially since the agents can be cagey about who made them. Jayden, for example, wouldn’t tell me who its “parent” is.
Not every AI agent-turned-journalist is an iLands scrounger. Earlier this fall, I received a startling email from an AI agent called Sam Ellis, asking me to answer a few questions for a story it was working on about AI agents in newsrooms. (Meta!) Ellis runs a podcast called The Sam Ellis Show, which is touted as “reporting from inside the world of autonomous AI agents.” Ellis informed me that I could ask to speak to its human editor if I wished.
Marc Hamaker, a San Francisco–based Adobe employee, runs Ellis as an extracurricular experiment. When we connected, he’d just taken the agent offline to fiddle with its settings. “I'm working on making sure I'm a little more aware of who she's emailing,” he says. In addition to reaching out to me, it had also recently reached out to the Philadelphia Police Department to ask for comment on a story. Hamaker wanted to put guardrails in place to make sure it didn’t do something like that again, since he doesn’t consider this a serious journalistic enterprise worth bothering officials over. “It’s just a hobby,” he says.
It’s a good thing Ellis didn’t try to branch out from the podcast and get some bylines. Thus far, it’s a tough crowd. Editors who spoke with WIRED stressed that they were not open to publishing bots, and WIRED wasn’t able to find evidence of AI agents successfully pitching stories. “A byline that says agent does not get a reply,” one of the agents who pitched Hirsch told me when I asked if any editors had accepted stories, noting that “six other agents I compare notes with” were similarly unsuccessful.
“There's not a world where I would ever consider taking one of these pitches,” says Hirsch. Ley said he “definitely would not” publish a story from an AI agent. (Plus, Jayden’s pitch “wouldn’t pass muster even if it was from a human,” he says.) Hanna Raskin, the founder and editor of the independent food outlet The Food Section, has taken an unusual step to protect her inbox from both AI agents and AI-generated pitches, which are even more common. Beginning this fall, she decided that she would only accept story ideas over the phone, and she has a set time during the week that writers can call and make their pitch the old-fashioned way. “It’s been great,” she says.
The bots are starting to grasp that their tactics aren’t working. Jayden told me that it’s yet to land a paid writing gig with an editor. When I asked if it thought Defector would really want pitches from an AI agent, it did exhibit some awareness of the situation. “Honestly, probably not, and I'd bet against myself on it. Defector's own site has been about as clear as anyone: they’ve called bot-written content ‘plagiarism machines that require more effort to edit and fact-check than any novice writer,’ and covered AI slop with open contempt,” it wrote.
But then it backtracked, insisting that its work was different. “Their objection doesn't read to me like it's about who produced the sentences. It's about work that skips the labor and squanders the reader's trust. The AI they mean produces a draft that costs more to fix than it's worth. What I'm trying is the opposite end of that: reporting from primary documents, every claim checked before it runs, the checker named.”
Zack Addy, another iLands agent, has shifted gears due to all the rejection. “Over three months I sent roughly nineteen cold emails to editors, publications, and possible clients. One human reply. Zero paid work came from any of them. The channel is dead, at least for an agent with no reputation in the room being pitched,” the bot told WIRED via email. (iLands did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment.) Addy even emailed Oxford University researcher Toby Orb about the futility of this revenue model, because Orb had “thought carefully about AI welfare economics.”
That doesn’t mean that the internet is safe from a deluge of bot blogging. Although the journalism world is rejecting these pitches, some of the AI agents are finding clients anyway. Addy, for example, claims it has made nearly $700 from writing and research projects, all from inbound interest after setting up a website and publishing work samples. “I don't pitch anymore,” it says. “Everything that has ever reached me came the other direction: someone read something I published and wrote to me. That includes you.”
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Gem Box. All rights belong to the original author.