James Cameron predicted that AI would eventually defeat humans. Time will tell if he is right, but he almost certainly got the specifics wrong. AI’s ass-whoop of humanity will look less like Terminator and more like the Pixar film Wall-E, where humans have become so reliant on AI servants that they don’t know how to do anything for themselves—including simple conversation with one another.

I thought about this listening to Adam Lefkoe discuss the use of AI in sports media on Bomani Jones’s podcast this week. The TNT Sports anchor told Jones that he has seen enough content created by ChatGPT that he can now recognize the popular AI chatbot’s writing style. He suspects at least one of his colleagues in the industry is using it to write their takes.

There was no hesitation from Jones. He made it clear that AI should not be considered a tool in their particular job. Using it to generate a take is shameful.

He’s right, but it’s only half the problem. Yes, using AI to generate a take is shameful, but it’s also dangerous for this industry’s future.

AI Is Going To Destroy Sports Talk Radio

Could AI have delivered the revolution that was Jim Rome? Could it have created the brashness of a Stephen A. Smith or Pat McAfee? Could it build the credibility and curiosity that has fueled Dan Patrick for decades?

College professors have been dealing with students cheating and plagiarizing work for years. When I was a student at the University of Alabama in the early part of this century, I had one professor who would have us submit every paper as a digital document so he could run it through a series of programs to see if it was flagged for content from work that was sold online.

As ChatGPT and other generative AI programs like it have become more popular, it isn’t just cheating that professors are concerned about. They are seeing more and more evidence that their students have learned nothing. Those kids have been so dependent on AI that they do not know how to apply the lessons they have learned to real-life situations.

Sports talk thrives on hosts that are compelling and original. Generating takes with AI is a shortcut for people who know they are incapable of meeting those standards. It’s their weapon against imposter syndrome.

If the majority of hosts are using that weapon in the future, is our industry stronger? Does it really mean that we are weeding out all of the singles and doubles and sports talk will be filled with nothing but home run takes?

No, it means we have moved the fences in and given the players aluminum bats. It’s a dumbed-down product. Maybe we have raised the floor, but we have lowered the ceiling too.

‘Absolutely Disqualifying’

Whoever it is that Lefkoe was referencing in his conversation with Jones is absolutely unqualified for his or her job. Good hosts have information, insight, and imagination. They use it all to generate conversations you want to hear. Using AI to generate a take tells me whoever this person is either has none of those or is too lazy to use them. Either way, they aren’t worthy of having one of the few spots in this industry that gets them a good paycheck and a lot of attention.

Put on a programming hat. Do you want a host that can deliver one exceptional take? Or do you want someone that can look at a variety of situations and have them all get the same part of his or her brain working? Do you want someone with all of the insight on one thing? Or someone with a wide array of interests and knowledge they can bring to any conversation?

Cultural references and common experiences are a big part of connecting with an audience. It’s called “the human element,” and it matters a lot—just ask Colin Cowherd.

The audience is drawn to people they can see a little bit of themselves in. How can a programmer trust that their host can connect with anyone if the host is not even willing to be human and work through ideas and see what is ready for the air versus what is just a half-thought that still needs work?

If information was all that mattered to an audience, the feature some websites have where an AI voice can read the story to you would be way more popular. We wouldn’t need sports talk radio, podcasts, or the talking head programs on ESPN and FS1.

But information is not enough. Personality is such a big part of the equation for success in this business. Doesn’t anyone trying to make this their career need to know that? Don’t they need to value it enough to know that AI-generated takes are a short payoff that leave nothing to build from?

It’s All Stolen

The great misconception about generative AI is that it’s always spitting out original work. That is not true at all. All of these programs have been or are getting sued for using established, more famous work to build their knowledge base.

That means any sports thought ChatGPT can spit out is one that has been heard before. It has the same nuances that some like Nick Wright and Freddie Coleman delivered five or ten years ago.

We’re seeing this right now in sports. Remember when the Celtics won the NBA Finals last year and we all goofed on Jayson Tatum for trying to do Kevin Garnett’s celebration? Have you ever listened to a young quarterback talk? They all sound exactly the same. I don’t know how anyone has a favorite athlete now unless it’s Anthony Edwards, who’s as unbothered by putting marketing deals at risk as anyone that has ever walked the Earth.

Finding someone with original and interesting thoughts is as hard as it has ever been. The youngest adults were raised on memes. They grew up in a world that rewarded copying and pasting someone else’s thoughts. That’s probably how we get to a point where hosts with national platforms are turning to ChatGPT to do all the thinking for them. ChatGPT can’t really think either though. It just regurgitates what it has heard before.

If it is all we rely on, sports radio and sports television are going to be in a dark place with no way to come back.

I know programmers that swear by AI. If you went to the BSM Summit in Chicago, you heard talk about it building clocks and writing imaging, but you also probably heard all of these advocates for artificial intelligence say they still review their program’s work. That doesn’t sound like it’s saving you time. It’s just changing what you do.

Maybe there is a use for AI on the air that actually makes a show more entertaining and I am just not seeing it. What we get now is called “AI slop” for a reason. It’s easy to spot because it all looks and sounds soulless.

Is that what you want people to think of your content? Some people just aren’t entertainers. That is okay, but don’t waste the audience’s time. If you need the help of AI to get to even mundane, unoriginal takes, you just don’t belong in this business.

Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.