all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

In a supreme sense of irony, it seems this article was quickly taken down when the subject of the article commented that Ars had fabricated (or hallucinated) quotes from him. So disappointing to see from Ars Technica.

Context:
https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/journalistic-standards.1511650/
https://mastodon.social/@nikclayton/116065459933532659

Archived article (containing the fabricated quotes), 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/

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 14 comments in c/programming@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 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.)

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

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

    Why link to falsehoods without context?

  • 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.

    🤷

  • 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.

  • 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?

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

    The link to the article leads to a 404.

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

    You shouldn't be posting that without the context in that comment:

    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.)

    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/

    @quacksalber@sh.itjust.works

  • source
  • parent
  • 4 comments in c/pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub view that post
    [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Watched the Ars conversation on this one. Aurich pulled the article after a firestorm in the comments, in which the quotes attributed to the AI agent operator appeared to be non-existent (the human subject of the article weighed in to corroborate this). Ars Technica has promised to investigate and update readers after the weekend.

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