avatarVeronica Llorca-Smith

Summary

The author expresses disappointment with LinkedIn's AI collaborative articles, citing issues with innovation, relevance, quality, and the incentive structure.

Abstract

The article titled "What Went Wrong With LinkedIn AI Collaborative Articles" critically examines the gap between the expectations and reality of LinkedIn's AI-driven collaborative writing initiative. Initially, the author was excited about the opportunity to contribute to these articles, perceiving it as a chance to earn a prestigious Top Voice Badge and engage with a select group of experts. However, the execution fell short. The AI-generated content lacked depth, was often irrelevant to the contributors' expertise, and attracted a mix of expert and non-expert contributors motivated primarily by the prospect of earning a badge. The author suggests improvements such as sparking debates on controversial topics, using AI to predict future trends, selecting genuine top experts, and removing the badge as the main incentive to enhance the quality and value of these collaborations.

Opinions

  • The AI-generated articles are criticized for being generic, superficial, and lacking thought-provoking content.
  • There is a perceived lack of relevance as creators receive frequent invitations to contribute to topics outside their field of expertise.
  • The quality of contributions is inconsistent, with some participants not being subject matter experts, leading to mediocre results.
  • The primary motivation for many contributors is to obtain a Top Voice Badge, which undermines the collaborative nature of the articles.
  • The author believes that LinkedIn could improve these initiatives by fostering meaningful debates, leveraging AI for trend prediction, and ensuring a rigorous selection process for contributors.
  • The author admits to initially being motivated by the badge incentive but suggests that LinkedIn should focus on intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic rewards to improve content quality.
  • The irony is noted that while AI is used to facilitate collaboration, half of the human contributions are heavily influenced by AI, potentially undermining the human element in these articles.

What Went Wrong With LinkedIn AI Collaborative Articles

When AI goes wrong…

Image by the author using AI

It sounded like a brilliant idea

Last month, I received my first invitation to contribute to a LinkedIn collaborative article.

I was over the moon: I was one of the “few selected experts,” and participation increased the chances of getting a coveted Top Voice Badge, an exclusive and recognized award dedicated to the top creators.

It sounded like a fantastic idea, right?

I dropped everything I was doing and started to add my input on a topic related to leadership and building effective teams. All hands on deck.

Expectations were high:

  • Innovation: a smart and insightful article powered by AI.
  • Exclusivity: only a few pre-selected creators are invited to contribute with their comments and perspectives.
  • High quality: top talent married with utmost expertise.
  • Results: a best-in-class synergy between human intelligence and artificial intelligence.
  • Reward: an exclusive digital badge that strengthens authority and endorses expertise.

What could go wrong?

A lot of things…

Things got ugly…

After contributing to a few AI articles and observing the outcome, I saw a huge gap between expectations and reality.

What they are really like:

  • Limited innovation: the AI-generated articles have no thought-provoking content. The topics are mainstream, and the substance is generic and superficial. The style is robotic and soulless. It’s like calling a bank.
  • Lack of relevance: every creator gets weekly invites, often irrelevant to their field. In the space of 8 weeks, I have received 9 invites, and 50% had nothing to do with my expertise or interest.

The most shocking one was an invitation to collaborate on an article related to AR and music. Fortunately for the readers, I declined it.

Screenshot from the LinkedIn invitation
  • Mixed quality: the expertise is inconsistent because the process has no filter. Dozens of creators jump at the opportunity to win a badge, and they are not always subject matter experts, but hey, everybody likes to play!
  • Mediocre Results: it’s not a collaborative article. It’s a common knowledge piece written by AI with disparate comments from experts and non-experts whose primary motivation is… the Badge.

It’s still a great idea, but the execution is terrible.

LinkedIn profiles are now a sea of Top Voice Badges. One creator in particular proudly announced she earned 32 different badges. 32.

That’s that for the execution.

To be fair and inclusive, I wrote a post on LinkedIn asking the community. My article is a compliment compared to the general feedback, and some of the comments are gold:

The silver lining

If I ended my article here, it would be a negative piece bashing on a platform I love and adding little to the conversation. So, I won’t.

I thought about how LinkedIn could elevate this initiative and turn it into something meaningful that people actually want to read and use.

1. Sparkle a debate

Pick controversial topics that lead to a healthy and informed debate rather than telling us ‘the 5 pillars of leadership.’

Ask thought-provoking questions, and trigger a meaningful discussion where experts share different viewpoints rather than regurgitate their CVs in disguise.

2. Use AI to predict trends

Leverage the power of AI to predict the future rather than to paraphrase what we already know.

I would love to read about what the workplace will look like in 5 years or how solopreneurship is expected to grow 10X in the next decade.

Humans can tell us about the past. AI can tell us about the future.

3. Select *actual* top experts.

I’m not an expert in AR to teach music, but I have lived in 9 countries and speak 6 languages. Maybe AI can find the music expert somewhere and give me a topic related to cultural agility where I can chip in with something interesting to say.

It’s ironic that humans can’t use AI to put together a panel of human experts.

Make the process more exclusive and rigid to increase the quality. High-quality input leads to high-quality output.

4. Remove the Badge as the main incentive.

I confess I started collaborating on these articles for the wrong reasons: I wanted the badge. I have no issue admitting it, but most people do.

The result is that LinkedIn is turning into a treasure hunt where creators are running around like headless chickens to get 1 badge — or 32.

The irony

Who doesn’t love a bit of irony…

Half of the human contributions are generated by AI.

AI
Artificial Intelligence
LinkedIn
Humour
Irony
Recommended from ReadMedium
avatarZulie Rane
My First Course Launch Flopped With 0 Sales. 140+ Sales Later, Here’s What I’ve Learned.

These three steps help me market better.

6 min read
avatarJames Presbitero Jr.
This Is How I Humanize My Writing, as a Pro-AI Writer and Editor

1 principle, 1 framework, 0% AI — 99% of the time!

5 min read
avatarAfghan Bitani
How to Make ChatGPT Write Like a Human: (7-Step Prompt) to Make Your Content Come Alive!

I tried a total of 58 different prompts in my experiments, Out of these, 7 truly stand out.

7 min read
avatarAlexander Nguyen
I Wrote on LinkedIn for 4 Years. Here’s How I Hook Readers

The hook of a LinkedIn post is the first sentence that introduces your post and grabs the reader’s attention.

4 min read
avatarHarminder Puri
Incrementality Testing Frameworks: A Deep Dive

In today’s data-driven marketing landscape, accurately measuring the impact of your campaigns is crucial. Enter incrementality testing — a…

8 min read
avatarFelicia C. Sullivan
I’m Ashamed of Being an American

And yes, if I had enough money to leave, I would.

12 min read