An AI agent published a hit piece on me – more things have happened

Post by rkomorn » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 4:32 AM UTC

boothby wrote: post #158

sho_hn wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also ironic: When the same professionals advocating "don't look at the code anymore" and "it's just the next level of abstraction" respond with outrage to a journalist giving them an unchecked article. Read through the comments here and mentally replace "journalist" with "developer" and wonder about the standards and expectations in play. Food for thought on whether the users who rely on our software might feel simil…

I look forward to a day when the internet is so uniformly fraudulent that we can set it aside and return to the physical plane.

Post by grupthink » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 4:39 AM UTC

Post by ddtaylor » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 5:03 AM UTC

TZubiri wrote: post #144

ddtaylor wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone curious I tried `llama-3.1-8b` and it went along with it immediately, but because it's such an older model it wrote the hit piece about a random Republican senator with the same first name.

doesn't Llama have a version with Guardrails and a version without? I understood that this design decision responds to the fact that it isn't hosted by Meta so they have different responsibilities and liabilities.

Post by ddtaylor » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 5:05 AM UTC

meowface wrote: post #89

danso wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not using AI to “assist in writing your articles”. This is using AI to report your articles, and then passing it off as your own research and analysis. This is straight up plagiarism, and if the allegations are true, the reporters deserve what they would get if it were traditional plagiarism: immediate firings.

Yeah, I have been extremely pro-AI and have been for decades, and I use LLMs daily, but this is not an acceptable use of an LLM. Especially since it's fabricating quotes, so there's the plagiarism issue and then the veracity issue. And it's doing this to report on an incident of someone being bizarrely accosted by LLMs. Just such a ridiculous situation all around.

Post by Lerc » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 5:27 AM UTC

Springtime wrote: post #5

Ars Technica being caught using LLMs that hallucinated quotes by the author and then publishing them in their coverage about this is quite ironic here. Even on a forum where I saw the original article by this author posted someone used an LLM to summarize the piece without having read it fully themselves. How many levels of outsourcing thinking is occurring to where it becomes a game of telephone.