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.)
post
replies:
The link to the article leads to a 404.
replies:
4 comments in c/pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub view that post
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.
replies:
404 Error, well done!
Oddly enough, I got an archive link in my clipboard right now. You can thank me later...
replies:
2 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
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/
replies:
all 14 comments