They literally stopped the game in the 13th minute (her jersey number) and subbed her out. Substituting someone that early in a match is typically because of injury and would have relevance to the overall outcome.
According to the article, ESPN said that human editors would review the AI recaps to ensure accuracy, so it wasn't just the AI recap that decided to leave it out.
Sounds like a selling point of the AI to me, if Morgan really wasn't instrumental to the game (it's common for a forward to just disappear for most of the match).
It's hard to watch anything by ESPN or NBC when you're just interested in the game and all they want to do is feed you everyone's backstory, or they're only interested in big name players.
For instance, the year after the Mavs beat the Heat to win the NBA championship, they face off in the first game of the year. Nevermind that the Mavs are the defending charmpions, the Heat had LeBron James and Dwayne Wade. They showed 8 highlights from the game, all from the Heat. The Mavs won the game.
An impartial AI recap does not have a high bar to get over.
Why do we feel the need to defend software bugs? Would we give the same defense of banking software that forgot to carry over the fractions of a penny?
It's a software bug, and there's plenty of resources available to the AI's owner to try and address it. It doesn't need a human advocating for it being OK.
The most relevant comment in this entire page. It is for the same reason that many people defended crypto-stuff here in HN for a long time: the hope that one can generate money from nothing. The holy grail of software development is the idea that one may sit down on a computer for a certain amount of hours/days and come out at the other end a millionaire. Crypto gave many people that impression; you simply build some kind of meaningless distributed crypto-driven app and money will start pouring in. Now it’s AI: learn how to develop with LLMs, build some kind of buzzword-filled low-hanging fruit and all of a sudden you can sell your startup for a billion dollars. If you point out to people that that’s bs, they think you’re trying to crush their dreams, that you’re the reason why it’s not working that well. “If only people would understand the crypto/AI revolution…”
Why is it a software bug? Just because you want to see those emotional sprinkles, doesn't mean that the person planning how to create the article decided that.
You personally and emotionally decided, without evidence, that this is a bug. No one else is saying that.
Imagine if you asked an AI to describe the discovery of radiation, and the AI deiced for you to talk about the personal life of Marie Curie for 2/3 of the whole text.
If you look into the happenings of the game, you'll find that there was a special ceremony held at 13 minutes for the retiring player. It's like summarizing the discovery of radiation and not mentioning Marie Curie at all. It's not emotional sprinkles (which is a pretty messed up way to refer to human interest articles), it's just omitting a notable deviation from the normal game flow is a bug.
We as a community are not used to calling AI failures bugs, but we probably should - it's the most accurate term we have. As is an non-requested backwards joint, or a fan of fingers, on a photorealistic generated image.
> In defense of the AI - the fact that it was her last match has little relevance to the game itself.
Only if you view the game as a cold emotionless process where the important thing is simply the data coming out, rather than the entirely human construct it is.
Right, and what AI misses is that the narrative of the game itself should be superseded (or at least complemented) by the unique additional subtext. It's not a defense of AI that it was oblivious to the most interesting angle.
These are the emotional sprinkles, that AI often misses.(Which is to be expected from an emotionless AI)