Metacritic Will Kick Out Media Attempting To Submit AI Generated Reviews (gamereactor.eu)
(Friday February 27, 2026 @05:40PM (msmash)
from the slop-not-allowed dept.)
- Reference: 0180868622
- News link: https://games.slashdot.org/story/26/02/27/1732218/metacritic-will-kick-out-media-attempting-to-submit-ai-generated-reviews
- Source link: https://www.gamereactor.eu/metacritic-will-kick-out-media-attempting-to-submit-ai-generated-reviews-1682413/
An anonymous reader shares a report:
> While some see AI as a tool to be used, its specific use and how it is deployed responsibly is being heavily debated online across a wide range of industries. In terms of journalistic content, and in this particular instance, reviews, review aggregator Metacritic has taken [1]a firm stance on content published and submitted to their platform , that have been generated by artificial intelligence in some way.
>
> In a statement by co-founder Marc Doyle, sent to Gamereactor, he says this: "Metacritic has been a reputable review source for a quarter century and has maintained a rigorous vetting process when adding new publications to our slate of critics. However, in certain instances such as a publication being sold or a writing staff having turned over, problems can arise such as plagiarism, theft, or other forms of fraud including AI-generated reviews. Metacritic's policy is to never include an AI-generated critic review on Metacritic and if we discover that one has been posted, we'll remove it immediately and sever ties with that publication indefinitely pending a thorough investigation."
>
> So, what is this about specifically? Well, it's probably a sound guess, that this pertains to Videogamer's review of Resident Evil 9: Requiem, which was removed from the platform after a barrage of comments accusing the review of being AI-written, and for the author of being made up.
[1] https://www.gamereactor.eu/metacritic-will-kick-out-media-attempting-to-submit-ai-generated-reviews-1682413/
> While some see AI as a tool to be used, its specific use and how it is deployed responsibly is being heavily debated online across a wide range of industries. In terms of journalistic content, and in this particular instance, reviews, review aggregator Metacritic has taken [1]a firm stance on content published and submitted to their platform , that have been generated by artificial intelligence in some way.
>
> In a statement by co-founder Marc Doyle, sent to Gamereactor, he says this: "Metacritic has been a reputable review source for a quarter century and has maintained a rigorous vetting process when adding new publications to our slate of critics. However, in certain instances such as a publication being sold or a writing staff having turned over, problems can arise such as plagiarism, theft, or other forms of fraud including AI-generated reviews. Metacritic's policy is to never include an AI-generated critic review on Metacritic and if we discover that one has been posted, we'll remove it immediately and sever ties with that publication indefinitely pending a thorough investigation."
>
> So, what is this about specifically? Well, it's probably a sound guess, that this pertains to Videogamer's review of Resident Evil 9: Requiem, which was removed from the platform after a barrage of comments accusing the review of being AI-written, and for the author of being made up.
[1] https://www.gamereactor.eu/metacritic-will-kick-out-media-attempting-to-submit-ai-generated-reviews-1682413/
I wish the same for bug bounties (Score:2)
Metacritic accepts submissions from known media, and takes action if phony reviews are submitted. That should be the approach for the FOSS bug bounties (to avoid shutting the programmes entirely): require a verified e-mail address from a security research company or academia. Bans the real name or the domain for AI slop submissions.