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

Ars Technica fires reporter after AI controversy involving fabricated quotes

futurism.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 409 posts

Re: Ars Technica fires reporter after AI controversy involving fabricated quotes

#391

Post by vintagedave »

asadotzler wrote: post #361
vintagedave wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're taking his fever dream excuse at face value Being sick with a bad fever is awful, it's a nightmare, and I cannot imagine making good decisions at the time. I do not know if he was ordered to work while sick, but there are often implicit expectations in workplaces and this was a time-sensitive article.

>I do not know if he was ordered to work while sick You don't know if they were even sick at all. In fact, when someone gets fired for cause, it's quite common for them to lie about the circumstances. That you take their comments at full value seems kinda naive.

No, but I think it's worth behaving with grace and kindness. If he claims that is the case, let's assume he is being honest. His other actions, such as proactively admitting fault, speak to honesty.

The statement also predated being fired, so far as we know the timeline.

Re: Ars Technica fires reporter after AI controversy involving fabricated quotes

#392

Post by bombcar »

ChrisSD wrote: post #171
AnonC wrote: post #50

Journalists and bloggers usually write about others’ mess ups and apologies, dissecting which apologies are authentic and which apologies are non-apologies. In this incident, Aurich Lawson of Ars Technica deleted the original article (which had LLM hallucinated quotes) instead of updating it with the error. He then published a vague non-apology, just like large companies and politicians usually do. And now we learn t…

> Aurich Lawson of Ars Technica deleted the original article That's a very "shoot the messenger" statement. While Aurich is the community "face" of Ars, I very much doubt he has the power to do anything like that.

Iirc he manages the CMS, he might literally be the only person with the power. Authority is something else.

Re: Ars Technica fires reporter after AI controversy involving fabricated quotes

#395

Post by newswasboring »

mikkupikku wrote: post #373
newswasboring wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original author clarified and you are still stuck here? Take a step back dude it's not that serious.

"You disagree with me? Whoa dude, you need to relax and touch grass."

Things are more nuanced than agreeing and disagreeing. If you can't see that then...

Re: Ars Technica fires reporter after AI controversy involving fabricated quotes

#396

Post by mikkupikku »

newswasboring wrote: post #395
mikkupikku wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You disagree with me? Whoa dude, you need to relax and touch grass."

Things are more nuanced than agreeing and disagreeing. If you can't see that then...

I disagree with you, deal with it. Specifying a junior developer to make the point of blaming systems instead of individuals, to absolve a journalist of individual blame for fabricating quotes, is flat out bullshit and you're wrong to try weaselling it.

Inb4 Omg I still can't believe you're disagreeing with me, like yikes dude go outside.

Auroiris is right, it's a Motte and Bailey routine. And it's insulting that you're pretending otherwise.

Re: Ars Technica fires reporter after AI controversy involving fabricated quotes

#397

Post by lich_king »

catlifeonmars wrote: post #323
lich_king wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a job of the editor to assume that the author is lying to you. > This was an institutional error, not an individual reporter's fault. Ah yes, "the system made me use AI".

The “system” should make it difficult to make mistakes. But more importantly, why can’t both be at fault? Having fact checkers review every articles you publish is a very low bar (as in you should not be in the business of publishing news if you can’t do it effectively).

> But more importantly, why can’t both be at fault?

They can and are. But the parent literally said it's not the author's fault.

Re: Ars Technica fires reporter after AI controversy involving fabricated quotes

#398

Post by lich_king »

starkparker wrote: post #316
lich_king wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a job of the editor to assume that the author is lying to you. > This was an institutional error, not an individual reporter's fault. Ah yes, "the system made me use AI".

As someone who worked as a newspaper copy editor for the first third of my career, "assume that the author is lying to you" was the entire job. A lapse in that non-hypothetically left me responsible, and legally liable, in situations like this.

As someone coming from a family of editors and plugged into the publishing world, I think it would be really weird if that was your job. It's not an adversarial relationship. Your job is to pressure-test the arguments and the language, not to ask every time if maybe the person submitting the article didn't really write it, or didn't really interview the person they're claiming to have interviewed.

> A lapse in that non-hypothetically left me responsible, and legally liable, in situations like this.

It didn't. At worst, it exposed the publisher. And the publisher would have the defense that they had the right policies in place and that the misconduct lies with the journalist. Unless it could be shown that you knew about potential issues and still went through with it for political or financial gain, it's a nothingburger.

Re: Ars Technica fires reporter after AI controversy involving fabricated quotes

#399

Post by tremon »

beloch wrote: post #149
AnonC wrote: post #50

Journalists and bloggers usually write about others’ mess ups and apologies, dissecting which apologies are authentic and which apologies are non-apologies. In this incident, Aurich Lawson of Ars Technica deleted the original article (which had LLM hallucinated quotes) instead of updating it with the error. He then published a vague non-apology, just like large companies and politicians usually do. And now we learn t…

"I inadvertently ended up with a paraphrased version of Shambaugh’s words rather than his actual words,” Edwards continued. He emphasized that the “text of the article was human-written by us, and this incident was isolated and is not representative of Ars‘ editorial standards." ---------- A reporter whose bailiwick is AI should have known that he needed to check any quotes an LLM spat out. The editorial staff should…

The editorial staff should have been checking too

In what world should the editor double check third-party quotes in an article submitted by a journalist? Do you think the Washington Post phones the White House every time an article quotes the president (ok, bad example, pretend I asked this question about a serious paper in a healthy democracy)?

There's also such a thing as journalistic confidentiality -- the editor may not even know the identity of the quoted source. That doesn't apply to this specific case but your claim was generic, and I think there's a serious misapprehension here if you think it's the editor's job to verify citations in journalists' writings.

Re: Ars Technica fires reporter after AI controversy involving fabricated quotes

#400

Post by etchalon »

bandrami wrote: post #381
etchalon wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not "career-ending" but definitely back a few paces. This wasn't outright fabrication, it was a sloppy editorial workflow that resulted in hallucinations being published as fast (which is absolutely going to be get more and more common unless newsrooms develop specific guards against it).

How is it not "outright fabrication"? Quotes were attributed to a subject that he didn't say. That's fabrication.

Fabrication implies agency in a way that doesn't feel accurate.
Post reply on HN