Earlier quoted context omitted.
I obviously cannot post the real unsafe examples.
[flagged]
An AI agent published a hit piece on me – more things have happened
581–590 of 670 posts
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me – more things have happened
#582Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is an incredibly tortured sentence. I'm not really interested in parsing tone in an article, that's very subjective. I would be interested if you could demonstrate that Ars was choosing not to write articles about factual things that would portray Musk in a positive light, but you instead basically said "If you ignore all of their positive factual coverage, they don't publish anything positive about Musk at all!…
I have said that they have a strong negative bias. Whether the underlying news is positive or negative is completely irrelevant. Relevant is that they make things much more negative (= less positive) than they are.
But how does that bias manifest? The only thing you said was that they "ignore neutral or positive stories", and that doesn't seem to be true.
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me – more things have happened
#583> "Previously, this level of ire and targeted defamation was generally reserved for public figures. Us common people get to experience it now too."
Foaming-at-the-mouth as a service, at affordable prices. Perfect together with verified-ID-required-for-everything
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me – more things have happened
#584Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, hence “holiday weekend” in my comment. They posted an article that had fabricated quotes. When might it be appropriate to start investigating that problem, and work on ensuring that it doesn’t happen again?
We'll be sure to get the Avengers on it real quick! Thanks for helping us understand the urgency required.
I don't think you get to be this snarky about helping people understand things, when your initial contribution was to read "it's all hands over the holiday weekend time" and reply by saying it's a holiday weekend.
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me – more things have happened
#585Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know how to create a robot-free Internet without accidentally furthering surveillance of humans. Any technique I can think of that would reliably prove I’m not a bot also seems like a technique that would make it easier for commercial or government tracking of me.
It's not hard to make sites completely antagonistic to LLMs / agentic AI. Even just having the basic Cloudflare bot check filters out a lot by itself. This is more a case of GitHub as an organization actively embracing having agentic AI rummaging about.
The funniest one is the "prove you are a bot" check that made the rounds. Click this button 10,000 times to prove you're a robot!
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me – more things have happened
#586Earlier 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.
I've started suspecting I'm looking back of the day where that happened.
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me – more things have happened
#587Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oddly enough it's not the first time I've seen their perceived recent drop in quality blamed on this. Just weird that it's happened twice - wonder where this narrative is coming from.
No, their quality has been dropping since the acquisition; it's just now gotten to the point where it cannot be explained away.
It's not just gotten to the point it can't be explained away. The best technical articles on the site have been the bio-horror shock material they pump out every month, and it's been that way for years.
When they started doing car reviews where "GM didn't pay for this car review, they just paid for a car review." everyone should've clued in.
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me – more things have happened
#588I have very strong, probably controversial, feeling on arstechnica, but I believe the acquisition from Condé Nast has been a tragedy. Ars writers used to be actual experts, sometimes even phd level, on technical fields. And they used to write fantastical and very informative articles. Who is left now? There are still a couple of good writers from the old guard and the occasional good new one, but the website is flood…
It gets pretty bad at times. Here's one of the most mindlessly uncritical pieces I've seen, which seems to be a press release from Volkswagen: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/03/volkswagen-unveils-sedr... Look at the image captions gushing about the "roomy interior" of a vehicle that doesn't even exist! I actually wrote in to say how disappointed I was in this ad/press release material, and the response was "That w…
It's been this way for years. I know because years ago they defended the practice and explained that the car companies don't pay for a specific review, they just pay for to sponsor stories in the genre of case reviews. And the worst part? The infernal comment section was lauding them.
Re: An AI agent published a hit piece on me – more things have happened
#589I have very strong, probably controversial, feeling on arstechnica, but I believe the acquisition from Condé Nast has been a tragedy. Ars writers used to be actual experts, sometimes even phd level, on technical fields. And they used to write fantastical and very informative articles. Who is left now? There are still a couple of good writers from the old guard and the occasional good new one, but the website is flood…
Arse Technica have always been pretty bad at following up with people they publish stories on. Years ago they ran a hit piece on a friend of mine for which they never bothered contacting him for his side of the story despite his home page with full contact info being literally the first Google result on a search for his name. Their tech stories are usually superficial but adequate, but don't assume you're getting any kind of valid reporting on controversies.