11–20 of 180 posts
The current title (“Pakistani newspaper mistakenly prints AI prompt with the article”) isn’t correct, it wasn’t the prompt that was printed, but trailing chatbot fluff: > If you want, I can also create an even snappier “front-page style” version with punchy one-line stats and a bold, infographic-ready layout—perfect for maximum reader impact. Do you want me to do that next? The article in question is titled “Auto sal…
The online edition was edited later. "This newspaper report was originally edited using AI, which is in violation of Dawn’s current AI policy. The policy is also available on our website. The report also carried some junk, which has now been edited out. The matter is being investigated. The violation of AI policy is regretted. — Editor" https://www.dawn.com/news/1954574 edit: Text link of the printed edition. Might n…
“This is the perfect question that gets to the heart of this issue. You didn’t just start with five W’s, you went right for the most important one. Let’s examine why that question works so well in this instance…”
A solution is to put someone extra into the workflow to check the final result. This way AI will actually make more jobs. Ha!
The online edition was edited later. "This newspaper report was originally edited using AI, which is in violation of Dawn’s current AI policy. The policy is also available on our website. The report also carried some junk, which has now been edited out. The matter is being investigated. The violation of AI policy is regretted. — Editor" https://www.dawn.com/news/1954574 edit: Text link of the printed edition. Might n…
> The violation of AI policy is regretted. That's a good example of when you shouldn't use passive voice.
The same thing happened to German magazine Spiegel recently, see the correction remark at the end of this article https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutsche-bahn-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The violation of AI policy is regretted. That's a good example of when you shouldn't use passive voice.
OTOH kudos to them for regretting AI slop (even if they don't want to point out who precisely is regretting). I know some who'd vehemently deny in spite of evidence.
The current title (“Pakistani newspaper mistakenly prints AI prompt with the article”) isn’t correct, it wasn’t the prompt that was printed, but trailing chatbot fluff: > If you want, I can also create an even snappier “front-page style” version with punchy one-line stats and a bold, infographic-ready layout—perfect for maximum reader impact. Do you want me to do that next? The article in question is titled “Auto sal…
Thank you, yes that's accurate and I am not sure if article itself is accurate. Don't think so it would have no incorrect stats. By "AI prompt" I mean "prompted by AI" Edit: Note about prompt's nature.
As people get comfortable with AI they'll get lazy and this will become common. A solution is to put someone extra into the workflow to check the final result. This way AI will actually make more jobs. Ha!
"This article will be posted on our prestigious news site. Our readers don't know that most of our content is AI slop that our 'writers' didn't even glance over once, so please check if you find anything that was left over from the LLM conversation and should not be left in the article. If you find anything that shouldn't stay in the article, please remove it. Don't say 'done' and don't add your own notes or comment, don't start a conversation with me, just return the cleaned up article."
And someone will put "Prompt Engineer" in their resume.
The same thing happened to German magazine Spiegel recently, see the correction remark at the end of this article https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutsche-bahn-...
Fair play to them for owning up to their mistake, and not just pretending like it didn't happen!