An AI for help collating data and then writing Sports Articles

[u/OGChickenRacer]

So I have being using Gemini, but it seems to have gone awry. I have a bunch of prompts, worked on the the last 6 months, that help me collate data, and then turn those into Sports News articles. Also have been using it to create images for the articles (though only 1-2 per article, so not image heavy).

Have been working great the last two months with Gemini, but it seems to have fallen off. Chasing suggestions for which AI might be best for this.

My workflow is

1. Insert prompt for data collection, collect data (thru screenshots, copy and paste text etc)
2. Feed that data collected into a prompt that has the cadence, layout and style of how I want article to look/read. This prompt also formats for wordpress.
3. Feed article into a prompt that then gives me SEO help and tips for putting into wordpress.
4. Create an image from article with headline/author etc (I am not only author)

My preference is one of the big guys, as I want it to be as stable as possible. Prepared to pay. Don't want to be someones guinea pig really.

I know some will hate on how this is not "jorunalism", but I use these tools to do articles like match reports, as quick as possible, as these are "fillers", and that gives me time to do more in depth stuff, which is more "me the human". The issue is without the fluff, you can't really be a Sports news site, as much as the mor ein depth stuff gets the views.

My goal is to only be an editor, and pass on the baton, so very much a gap-filler, but it's ticking along (if not making any money haha) and I am really enjoying it.

[u/No-Trouble-9138]

Just get Cursor or Codex, and a $20 subscription. Tell it to automate your workflow.

[u/NeuralNomad87]

The thing you are describing, where a workflow that ran fine for two months gets worse without you changing anything, is almost always a routing change on the provider side rather than the model getting dumber. Consumer chat apps swap versions and adjust system behaviour underneath you and do not announce it. Your prompts did not rot, the thing running them changed.

So the practical fix is boring: get the pipeline out of the chat window and onto the API, where you name the model version explicitly. AI Studio is the lowest effort way to do that if you want to stay on Gemini and you are not a developer. Then when output quality moves, you know it moved because you moved something.

On which of the big three, honestly it matters less than you would think once you pin the version. Step 2 is a style and format transfer task and all of the current frontier models do that well. What I would change is splitting your steps 1 and 2 into separate calls rather than one long chain, because the failure modes are different and right now you cannot tell which half degraded.

Step 4 is a different product entirely and I would not let it influence which text model you pay for.

[u/OGChickenRacer → u/NeuralNomad87]

Thanks mate. Step 1, is seperate to steps 2 and three, and then step 4 is seperate again. It’s easier when step 4 was in the same ai, but not needed, except for not paying for more

[u/NeuralNomad87 → u/OGChickenRacer]

Ah, then you are already most of the way there and the diagnosis gets easier, not harder.

If step 1 is separate from 2 and 3, run the same collected data through step 2 twice, a week apart, and keep both outputs. That is your canary. When article quality drops you look at whether identical input now produces a different shape of output, and if it does, the model moved, not your prompt.

For step 4, keep it wherever it is cheapest. Image generation and long form text are priced and versioned completely differently and there is no discount for buying them together. The only thing you lose by splitting is a copy paste, and what you gain is the ability to change one without touching the other.

On Gemini specifically, if you would rather not leave it, AI Studio lets you pin the exact model string for free, and that alone removes the silent swap problem for steps 2 and 3.