141–150 of 223 posts
> That this happened at Ars is especially distressing. We have covered the risks of overreliance on AI tools for years, and our written policy reflects those concerns. In this case, fabricated quotations were published in a manner inconsistent with that policy. Ars were caught with their pants down. We have no reason to believe otherwise. It isn't possible to prove otherwise. We as readers are lucky ars quoted someon…
Feels like nail in the coffin, Ars has already been going downhill for half a decade or more. I unsubscribed (just the free rss) regardless of their retraction.
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.
I'm curious if you've read the author's Bluesky statement (which wasn't available when you made your comment) and what you think of it?
I certainly stand by my broader claim that lying is fireable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
the apology for the mistake is fine but it is expected journalistic practice to hand an article to a fact checker before it goes out who will quite literally make sure names, dates, quotes and so on are authentic. I thought of Ars Technica as a pretty decent publication, now I am wondering if they actually check what they publish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious if you've read the author's Bluesky statement (which wasn't available when you made your comment) and what you think of it?
I'll admit that at least looks consistent with extreme carelessness rather than lying. I don't find it terribly convincing, though. I find it a suspiciously long chain of excuses perfectly calibrated to excuse the events. The description gets vague right at the critical point where AI output gets laundered into journalistic output, and the part about the tool being strictly to gather "verbatim source material" sounds…
For what it's worth, the post below talks about experimenting with Claude Code but also having COVID in December. I don't know what to think of that, I did work with a guy who just kept catching COVID (or at least he said that and I believed him, I didn't swab him personally or anything), but it is weird for him to have COVID in December and February.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2026/01/10-th...
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…
Quality took a nosedive, which may or may not have quickened the death spiral.
All that to say, there may not even be senior editors around to put in the loop.
Bluesky post by Benj (one of the authors of the article). https://bsky.app/profile/benjedwards.com/post/3mewgow6ch22p He admits to using an AI tool, says he was sick and did dumb things. He does clear Kyle (the other author).
Really refreshing to see someone owning up to their mistake, that is something rare nowadays.
This is something you don’t see a lot in journalism nowadays. Multiple publications have been caught in multiple provable lies or inaccuracies over the last few years, and this is the first official retraction I’ve seen. I tip my hat to the ars team.
There are official retractions in reputable publications almost every day. Lots of major publications have an entire section of their website devoted to it: https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.wsj.com/news/types/corrections etc etc. Many of them include the retraction or correction in the following print edition, if they have one, as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll admit that at least looks consistent with extreme carelessness rather than lying. I don't find it terribly convincing, though. I find it a suspiciously long chain of excuses perfectly calibrated to excuse the events. The description gets vague right at the critical point where AI output gets laundered into journalistic output, and the part about the tool being strictly to gather "verbatim source material" sounds…
Well I appreciate you taking the time to respond and acknowledge the new evidence. I agree with the broad point that dishonesty can't be tolerated in a newsroom. And it's a "Caesar's wife must be beyond reproach" situation, the appearance of dishonesty is very bad regardless of the reality. And despite what Orland claims I do think there's blame to go around for not catching the mistake (assuming we accept his accoun…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are official retractions in reputable publications almost every day. Lots of major publications have an entire section of their website devoted to it: https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.wsj.com/news/types/corrections etc etc. Many of them include the retraction or correction in the following print edition, if they have one, as well.
Exactly. And they don’t just rip down the old article but annotate it with a disclaimer that an earlier version said XXX