Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Editor's Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 223 posts

Re: Editor's Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

#111

Post by vor_ »

jmward01 wrote: post #54

I see a lot of negative comments on this retraction about how they could have done it better. Things can always be done better but I think the important thing is that they did it at all. Too many 'news' outlets today just ignore their egregious errors, misrepresentations and outright lies and get away with it. I find it refreshing to see not just a correction, but a full retraction of this article. We need to encoura…

Respectfully, I find this to be an unwarranted positive reaction to have toward this situation. What other action could Ars possibly take as a journalistic business? The quotes are indisputably false. This is hardly a praise-worthy action to take. It's the expected and required action.

With regard to editorial review, an editor didn't catch the error. The target of the false quotes had to register on Ars and post a comment about it. To top it off, more than one Ars commenter was openly suspicious that he was a fake account. Only when some of the readers checked for themselves to see that the quotes were indeed falsified did it gain attention from Ars staff.

Re: Editor's Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

#112

Post by [deleted] »

gdulli wrote: post #89
water-data-dude wrote: post #83

Benj Edwards, one of the authors, accepted responsibility in a bluesky post[0]. He lists some extenuating circumstances[1], but takes full responsibility. Time will tell if it's a one-off thing or not I guess. [0] https://bsky.app/profile/benjedwards.com/post/3mewgow6ch22p [1] your mileage may vary on how much you believe it and how much slack you want to cut him if you do

It's not really important whether it's a one-off thing with this one guy, he's not relevant in the big picture. To the extent that he deindividualizes his labor he's just one more fungible operator of AI anyway. People are making a bigger deal about it than this one article or site warrants because of ongoing discourse about whether LLM tech will regularly and inevitably lead to these mistakes. We're all starting to…

[deleted]

Re: Editor's Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

#113

Post by ilamont »

Former technology journalist here.

If you want to experiment with reported news using untested tools that have known quality problems, do it in a strictly controlled environment where the output can be carefully vetted. Senior editor(s) need to be in the loop. Start with something easier, not controversial or high-profile articles.

One other thing. If the author cut corners because he's too sick to write, but did so anyway because he thought his job would be in jeopardy if he didn't publish, maybe it's time for some self-reflection at Ars regarding the work culture and sick leave/time-off policies.

Re: Editor's Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

#114

Post by arduanika »

water-data-dude wrote: post #83

Benj Edwards, one of the authors, accepted responsibility in a bluesky post[0]. He lists some extenuating circumstances[1], but takes full responsibility. Time will tell if it's a one-off thing or not I guess. [0] https://bsky.app/profile/benjedwards.com/post/3mewgow6ch22p [1] your mileage may vary on how much you believe it and how much slack you want to cut him if you do

Okay. I've been harsh on Ars Technica in these comments, and I'm going to continue to hold an asterisk in my head whenever I see them cited as a source going forward. However, at least one thing in this apology does seem more reasonable than people have made it out to be: I think it's fine for reporters at an AI-skeptical outlet to play around with various AI tools in their work. Benj Edwards should have been way more cautious, but I think that people should be making periodic contact with the state of these tools (and their pitfalls!), especially if they're going to opine.[1]

We don't know yet how widespread these practices are at Ars Technica, or whether this is a one-off. But if it went down like he says it did here, then the coincidental nature of this mistake -- i.e., that it's an AI user error in reporting an AI novel behavior story at an AI-skeptical outlet -- merely makes it ironic, not more egregious than it already is.

[1] Edit: I read and agreed with ilamont's new comment elsewhere in this thread, right after posting this. It's a very reasonable caveat! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47029193

Re: Editor's Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

#115

Post by chrisjj »

malfist wrote: post #5
usefulposter wrote: post #2

tl;dr: We apologize for getting caught. Ars Subscriptors in the comments thank Ars for their diligence in handling an editorial fuckup that wasn't identified by Ars.

I don't know how you could possibly have that take away from reading this. They did a review of their context to confirm this was an isolated incident and reaffirmed that it did not follow the journalistic standards they have set for themselves. They admit wrong doing here and point to multiple policy violations.

> They did a review of their context to confirm this was an isolated incident

The only incident we know was isolated was getting caught.

Re: Editor's Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

#116

Post by Terr_ »

blell wrote: post #15
andrewflnr wrote: post #12

People put a lot of weight on blame-free post-mortems and not punishing people who make "mistakes", but I believe that has to stop at the level of malice. Falsifying quotes is malice. Fire the malicious party or everything else you say is worthless.

There’s no malice if there was no intention of falsifying quotes. Using a flawed tool doesn’t count as intention.

Replace parent-poster's "malice" with "malfeasance", and it works well-enough.

I may not intend to burn someone's house down by doing horribly reckless things with fireworks... but after it happens, surely I would still bear both some fault and some responsibility.

Re: Editor's Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

#117

Post by chrisjj »

j0057 wrote: post #9

Odd that there's no link to the retracted article. Thread on Arstechnica forum: https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/editor%E2%80%99s-note-... The retracted article: https://web.archive.org/web/20260213194851/https://arstechni...

> Odd that there's no link to the retracted article.

Not at all. Whitewash.

Re: Editor's Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

#119

Post by skybrian »

vor_ wrote: post #101

Several of the subscribers in the comments are so eager to praise Ars for "catching" the error and being honest by retracting the article, as if that's not an expected journalistic standard. They're so happy to have a reason NOT to be upset. This wasn't even caught by Ars or any of its readers. The guy being misquoted had to sign up and post a comment about it.

I'm happy that they fixed it, checked for any similar errors, and promised that they would improve their processes to try to prevent it from happening again.

This is pretty much what I expect when an organization makes a mistake. Many organizations don't do as well.

Re: Editor's Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

#120

Post by wavemode »

bojan wrote: post #95
water-data-dude wrote: post #83

Benj Edwards, one of the authors, accepted responsibility in a bluesky post[0]. He lists some extenuating circumstances[1], but takes full responsibility. Time will tell if it's a one-off thing or not I guess. [0] https://bsky.app/profile/benjedwards.com/post/3mewgow6ch22p [1] your mileage may vary on how much you believe it and how much slack you want to cut him if you do

The bigger problem is that he felt the need to work while ill in bed, with very little sleep and sick with fever. Makes me wonder about Ars Technica's company culture.

tbh that's the least surprising aspect of this. Most journalists do not have work-life balance.
Post reply on HN