How We Use AI

The articles on VIPs of Atlanta Soccer are written by real humans. The reporting, match observations, analysis, opinions, and editorial decisions all come from us. The same goes for creation and maintenance of the site itself.

AI does have a role in producing the site. It is one of the tools we use for research, proofreading, editing, technical work, and visual creation. What it does not do is replace the reporting, the writer, or the human. The underlying and original work is human. Speling errors and all. AI is not the author of the journalism published here.

Where AI Helps

Research and Background Work

AI can help us perform some research. That might mean finding background information, looking through historical material, organizing data, identifying possible sources, finding things in other languages, or pointing us towards something worth looking into.

We do not treat AI itself as a source. It is not allowed to guide our thinking. All information is independently verified before publication.

Proofreading and Editing

AI may be used as an editorial tool to identify spelling mistakes ( of which I have many ), grammatical issues ( again ), repetition, repetition, issues which may have been missed, or repetition.

All AI-provided suggestions are reviewed by the author, who determines whether any change is used. AI does not determine the reporting, conclusions, opinions, or editorial position of an article.

Images and Digital Artwork

I prefer to use real photographs whenever I can. Sometimes, though, the right image simply is not available.

AI may be used alongside traditional graphics applications for routine photo editing. That can include adjusting contrast or levels, removing glare, stitching photos together, or reducing noise.

I may also use AI to create banner images or other visual elements for an article, or for the site.

If an image is AI-generated, I am not going to present it as a real photograph. Where it makes sense, AI-generated or substantially AI-created artwork will be identified in the image credit or caption.

AI Detection

Mostly out of curiosity, I decided to run some of our articles through AI detection tools. These tools try to estimate whether something was written by a human or by an AI. They are not definitive of course, and can get things wrong, and some of the comments were entertaining.

These are some of the findings about my site.

“Extremely Low (<5%) probability of AI authorship”

“irregular sentence construction”

“exhibits classic signs of on-the-ground sports reporting rather than machine-generated summary”

“match sequence description captures real tactical nuance and natural sentence variance”

“too much variation and too many concrete, sometimes messy observations”

“Specific observational detail”

“Natural sentence variation”

“It reads like an experienced soccer reporter giving a direct, unvarnished match recap.”

“spelling, typographical, and grammatical imperfections”

This may be the first time my spelling and grammatical mistakes have counted in my favor.

There was still apparently a small chance that I may be an AI. I’ll have to compute on that.