Artificial Intelligence & The Content Writing Revolution—Really?
On March 14, 2023, I was invited by the SMX Paris to share my thoughts and discuss the topic “Will AI revolutionize content creation in SEO?” Laurent Rignault moderated the discussion between Thomas Leonetti, Paul Sanches, Philippe Yonnet, and myself.
First of all, these points are just the beginning of a long line of thought. The topic of artificial intelligence and its applications in the creative field is a fascinating one. It offers a fresh perspective on our professions.
As a service provider, Assonance is, of course, influenced by the emergence of artificial intelligence tools accessible to the general public. First and foremost, we must explore all the opportunities this technology offers. This is research we’ve been conducting on a casual basis for several years now. We’re testing all kinds of tools for automating recurring tasks. We’ve already given several presentations on this topic, notably at SEO Camp’us, where we discussed the industrialization of e-commerce content for demanding brands, and at the most recent Women in Tech SEO Festival (UK) 2023, where we addressed workflow optimization.
Second, our role as consultants requires constant monitoring. We must be able to answer our clients’ questions: about how to use AI in their projects, and how to assess the risks associated with the rise of AI, which could also be used by competitors. Recent product launches such as ChatGPT and OpenAI’s announcements regarding GPT-4, as well as Google’s announcements regarding Bard, encourage us to take this issue very seriously. This is a game-changer not only for our industries but also for all the markets in which we operate.
Don't reduce content creation to just writing
I’m starting with this topic on purpose. Today, the arrival of ChatGPT has made many web marketing professionals realize that we can indeed automate and/or delegate content creation to a machine. This idea is far from new, given that content-writing tools already enjoy significant visibility in the market. In the field of SEO, of course, tools like the ones we use—such as YourText.Guru, Babbar, Kill Duplicate, and Semrush—already provide us with plenty of data to cut down on the time spent staring at the screen, wondering where to start.
But our work—and the time we spend striving to be more efficient and creative—also gives us the opportunity to repurpose tools beyond their original uses. That’s why we like to explore databases of information that we don’t necessarily consult for the reasons you might think.
We, along with all professionals in the field ofweb writing didn’t wait for OpenAI’s work to automate our processes and find ways to save time. I think we can even say that we didn’t wait for the advent of computing if we look at the analog organizational methods that already existed. The diagram above shows an example of a project workflow broken down by tasks. There are surely some omissions or details to add. We can clearly see how little space the “writing” stage takes up within this creative process. The preliminary phases of audit and strategic planning were not included in this diagram. I would even go so far as to say that the “writing” part isn’t always the most interesting.
Writing and producing a finished text are not the result of some magical, spontaneous act. It’s not as if all it takes is sitting down at a keyboard for a few minutes or a few hours to produce something satisfying—whether for oneself or for someone else. The writer is very rarely alone. Even if they can shut themselves away in their office for a while, it’s rare for them to be the sole decision-maker. This is a situation we might encounter in self-publishing—and even then, only if we cling to the illusion that an author is never influenced by another person’s opinion, who then, in turn, becomes a contributor of sorts.
Image generated by artificial intelligence (source: https://yourtext.guru/)
That is why I recommend taking a step back and looking at content-generation tools as a whole. On the one hand, writing the text itself is only a very small part of the overall creative process. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to assume that these (current) tools are capable of anticipating and/or meeting all of our needs and requirements.
Using these tools also leads us to ask ourselves, “What level of automation do I really need?” I feel thatwe’re currently fantasizing about omniscient artificial intelligences that could fulfill all our desires. Among the various steps in the diagram above, there isn’t a single one that we don’t already carry out with at least some assistance from a tool, a software program, or, more simply, a script developed for a specific need.
We should therefore distinguish between the needs and capabilities of AI in autonomous creation versus assisted creation.
Finally, we might also askwho should be considered the creator. Could we say that it refers solely to the user, the designer of an AI, the person who trains the AI(1), or simply the company that owns the AI? Or the user’s employer? Traditionally, we tend to identify an author or creator based on the traces they leave in their creation. This is even how we authenticate works of art, or attribute works to artists despite the absence of an obvious signature. It is also these traces that allow us to define the concepts of originality and uniqueness. It is the unique aspect of a creation that makes it so valuable(2).
We could also try to distinguish, when drafting content, the levels of involvement of each stakeholder:
the designer,
the publisher,
The editor,
the contributor,
the proofreader,
the integrator…
Just like in a movie, where we have a director, a screenwriter, a cinematographer, actors, editors… web content should probably be considered a collective work, especially with the help of AI.
But the way an artificial agency operates raises a question that goes even further. More specifically, it’s about identifying the true source. Indeed, when we’re in the traditional research phase, we’re supposed to connect ideas, generate new ones, process them, and articulate them in words. However, when the content of a training set is used like the ingredients in a recipe… Can the authors of the content in the training set claim to be co-authors of the creations generated by AI?
There is a right to use resources made available to the public for scientific research purposes:
“EU lawprovides for certain exceptions and limitations regarding uses for scientific research purposes that may apply to text and data mining activities. However, these exceptions and limitations are optional and are not fully suited to the use of technologies in the field of scientific research. Furthermore, when researchers have lawful access to content—for example, through subscriptions to publications or open-access licenses—the terms of those licenses may exclude text and data mining. As research is increasingly conducted with the aid of digital technology, the Union’s competitiveness as a research area risks being undermined unless measures are taken to address the legal uncertainty surrounding text and data mining.”
At the same time, exceptions and limitations to this use would be possible. To this end, the decision rests with the rights holder of the content that may be included in a training set (a dataset used by AI). The rights holder must indicate, in a manner understandable to the robot, their “opt-out” :
“Digital copiesand reproductions made during text and data mining are stored with an appropriate level of security and may be retained exclusively for scientific research purposes, including for the verification of research results.” [...] Without prejudice to the provisions of Section II, digital copies or reproductions of works that have been lawfully accessed may be made for the purpose of text and data mining conducted by any person, regardless of the purpose of the mining, unless the author has objected in an appropriate manner, in particular through machine-readable means for content made available to the public online. ”
What would a revolution in SEO content creation look like?
Between the revolution that is taking shape and the onewe would like to see, are they the same revolution?
While some stakeholders hope to find a ready-made solution to all their content-related challenges through AI, others fear for their profession and their financial future. These concerns are entirely legitimate. They are also issues that concern us, as service providers whose work revolves around editorial content… and, inevitably, writing.
We have chosen to view artificial intelligence as an additional tool. On the one hand, because we already use it to automate specific tasks or broaden our horizons by speeding up research phases. On the other hand, because we realize that the time saved on operational and repetitive tasks does not mean we can spend less time working on intellectual tasks. On the contrary, artificial intelligence—or any automation process—tends to free up more of our time to delve deeper into strategic thinking and content creation. It also allows us to devote more time to market monitoring and prototype development, driving editorial innovation. That is why the automation we have been gradually integrating into our processes since 2018 has actually led to an increase in our rates, rather than driving our prices down, as some fear.
You should also take into account the costs of:
licenses ( software, SaaS tools, APIs),
developing scripts to adapt these technologies to our own needs,
training in the use of,
evangelism among employees, customers, and partners,
process adaptation (change management),
and surely other points that aren't coming to mind right now as I write these words.
For us, artificial intelligence serves as a a springboard to move upmarket and create content we’ll be even more satisfied with. From our perspective as an agency, the economies of scale we’ve achieved foster the emergence of new ideas. Our human minds are freer to focus on other things. Thank you, dear machine.
You can also find more thoughts on this topic in:
an interview I gave to Le Blog du Modérateur on March 9, 2023 on the occasion of SMX Paris 2023,
An article on Reacteur.com “Automation of Content Creation: An Overview and Perspective” dated February 15, 2021.
(1) Deltorn, Jean-Marc and Macrez, Franck, “Authorship in the Age of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence” (August 1, 2018). In: Sean M. O’Connor (ed.), *The Oxford Handbook of Music Law and Policy*, Oxford University Press, 2019 (Forthcoming), Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) Research Paper No. 2018-10, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3261329 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3261329
(2) ADER, Basile, “The Evolution of the Concept of Originality in Case Law,” LEGICOM, 2005/2 (No. 34), pp. 43–49. DOI: 10.3917/legi.034.0043. URL: https://www.cairn.info/revue-legicom-2005-2-page-43.htm
