76
After a routine code rejection, an AI agent published a hit piece on someone by name (EDIT: See description and comments regarding 404) (arstechnica.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

EDIT: The original link is now a 404 because Ars Technica apparently fabricated quotes, or possibly even generated the article in an extreme case of irony.

Here is some context:
https://mastodon.social/@nikclayton/116065459933532659
https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/journalistic-standards.1511650/

Here is the original (partially fabricated) archived article if you still want to read it: https://web.archive.org/web/20260213194851/https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/after-a-routine-code-rejection-an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-someone-by-name/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 8 months ago (9 children)

FYI, the article was presumably taken down because many of the quotes turned out to have been fabricated, and they said they were investigating this. (I don't think that they are trying to cover up anything, just that they have not gotten around to written an official response yet, given that this is a recent development.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 13 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Ugh, that is utterly disappointing to see from Ars Technica. Here's a bit of context about it: https://mastodon.social/@nikclayton/116065459933532659

    Fortunately, the article was already archived, for what it's worth: https://web.archive.org/web/20260213194851/https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/after-a-routine-code-rejection-an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-someone-by-name/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    You should edit your original post to use the archive link, as the main link now leads to a 404 error..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Why link to falsehoods without context?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I didn't write the article, neither did OP.

    If the article is false, well so be it, but at least the supposedly false article was archived.

    Sometimes, even if an article proves to be false, readers in the future might still be curious what all the article said or claimed.

    🤷

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 7 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I think it's best to leave the post link as is. I don't want to point people to misinformation. I've added a post description instead with context and the archive link. If people downvote this post because of the 404, so be it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Of course they were fabricated, by an AI.
    More seriously, which quotes were you referring to?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Sounds like the quotes from the person that wrote the blog

    https://infosec.exchange/@mttaggart/116065340523529645

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •