Well it looks like someone fell for the lie that LLMs increase productivity, silly goose. You have to spend more time correcting their mistakes than you save by not writing the article in the first place!
post
Ars Technica does not permit the publication
They clearly did and do. Maybe they mean they don't permit it to stay published once they find it.
But that sort of sloppy imprecise language is what I'd expect from them anyway.
Speed-running their slide into irrelevance.
I think this says it all: https://bsky.app/profile/mightyapollo.bsky.social/post/3meyhu3kkgs2n
I like Ars and I enjoy Benj on Retronauts. That being said maybe the author whose just it is to report on AI shouldn't have used AI in his writing process regardless of if he was sick or not.
Who was the author of this Ai slop?
Benj Edwards, the author responsible, has posted his side.
Well, I can see how that could happen, and in fact, copy-paste artifacts and unintended summaries/hallucinations have happened to me when grabbing output back from an LLM.
Here's the thing though: I catch it 100% of the time because my writing has version control and I compare diffs. When dealing with something that can exist as plain text, there isn't a good reason not to have that setup. I'm no journalist, but it blows my mind that writers who deal specifically in reported facts apparently don't have systems in place to idiot-proof and preserve their sources of truth.
I get it, at some point back in the analog days there were more editors and copywriters that actually verified these things, and those jobs were sacrificed at the altar of capitalism. I've seen writing quality on the web take a downturn as a result. But for fuck's sake y'all, maybe do the bare minimum and start implementing safeguards before you let your writers use inherently lossy tools?
Thank fuck Bsky has these character limits or else he would have had to put all that text in an easily legible format for reading and copying. Fuck character limits up their stupid asses.
The author added the entire text in the alt text if you click on the image and then the ... to see the full thing. Can easily copy and paste from that or read it there instead
All the more stupid. Why is it hidden in the alt text and not in the text of the post?
Not using an ActivityPub based platform has it's drawbacks I guess
This sounds eerily familiar…
I don’t know if Hearst told him to use a chatbot to generate their “Best of Summer Lists,” but it doesn’t matter. When you give a freelancer an assignment to turn around ten summer lists on a short timescale, everyone understands that his job isn’t to write those lists, it’s to supervise a chatbot.
But his job wasn’t even to supervise the chatbot adequately (single-handedly fact-checking 10 lists of 15 items is a long, labor-intensive process). Rather, it was to take the blame for the factual inaccuracies in those lists. He was, in the phrasing of Dan Davies, “an accountability sink” (or as Madeleine Clare Elish puts it, a “moral crumple zone”).
https://locusmag.com/feature/commentary-cory-doctorow-reverse-centaurs/
This is a good way to handle the situation and an understandable and believable scenario, so I'm perfectly willing to forgive this. I'm a little less okay with an apparent "work in spite of illness" policy, however.
But still, it's a serious blunder, and it needs to be said that any repeat of this at all would be very damning. I can't forgive this level of fuckup twice. Any AI use is a risk, folks; treat it like one.
Why would he play with an AI toy while he's doing his job and he's sick?
Of course something was bound to happen.
You can't empathize with someone having to work while sick and wanting to use a tool to make that work slightly easier?
Thanks for sharing, I was wondering if he would say anything about it. They seem to be handling it well.
I agree with you. For better or worse, I have to imagine a lot of people who's job relies on pumping out regular articles use LLMs to get the ball rolling. Which is what appears to have happened here.
Just to be clear, the article itself was written by him; he was just experimenting with an AI tool to extract quotes (because learning about AI tools is literally his job), and because he had COVID at the time he got mixed up and pasted paraphrased quotes rather than original quotes. (Arguably he should not have been experimenting with a new tool while sick, but I am willing to cut him some slack because he was probably not thinking clearly at the time.)
The serious thing here is actually not so much that he used an AI tool at some point in the process but that fabricated quotes ended up in a published article.
Woah, they take the blame and apologize. This is not often seen and commands respect.
On Friday afternoon, Ars Technica published an article containing fabricated quotations generated by an AI tool and attributed to a source who did not say them. That is a serious failure of our standards. Direct quotations must always reflect what a source actually said.
That this happened at Ars is especially distressing. We have covered the risks of overreliance on AI tools for years, and our written policy reflects those concerns. In this case, fabricated quotations were published in a manner inconsistent with that policy. We have reviewed recent work and have not identified additional issues. At this time, this appears to be an isolated incident.
Ars Technica does not permit the publication of AI-generated material unless it is clearly labeled and presented for demonstration purposes. That rule is not optional, and it was not followed here.
We regret this failure and apologize to our readers. We have also apologized to Mr. Scott Shambaugh, who was falsely quoted.
Nothing about who put it in there or what you're doing to them?
We are reinforcing our editorial standards following this incident.
It sounds like they will be reminding their team not to do that and scrutinizing articles in the near future
Someone deserves to be fired. Just imagine you're paying someone to do a job and they just 100% completely outsource it to a machine in 5 seconds and then goes home.
Calm down, that’s not what happened
@GammaGames this.The editors are ultimately responsible for this, and they are owning up, @artyom. This is how it should be. There will probably be internal consequences to whoever wrote the piece and included the slop-quotes, but the buck stops with the editors as far as anyone outside is concerned.Otherwise editors could just blame every slip-up and failure on the intern (whoever the intern is that week) and publicly fire them, having a nice public execution instead of real accountability.
He wrote the article himself, he just got mixed up when experimenting with using an AI tool to help him extract quotes from a blog entry. (He is the head AI writer, so learning about these tools is his job.) It was nonetheless his failure to check the quotes he was copying from his note to make sure that he got them right... but an important bit of context is that he had COVID while doing all this. Now, arguably he should have taken sick time off instead of trying to work through it (as he admits), but this would have cost him vacation time, and the fact that he even was forced into making this choice is a systemic problem that is not being sufficiently acknowledged.
this would have cost him vacation time
After all these years my poor European brain is still struggling to understand this.
If only this could have been prevented by, I don't know, not experimenting.
It is literally his job to be familiar with this technology, which he cannot do if he does not experiment with it.
Having said that, doing this experiment while sick was probably ill-advised, so in that sense I agree with you, but in fairness he probably was not thinking clearly while he was sick.
Surely he picked the very worst thing to experiment with, and at the worst time... And that's the very best case scenario
he had COVID while doing all this
I've had COVID before, it sucks but it doesn't make you stupid.
he just got mixed up when experimenting
I don't believe him.
Why don't you believe him?
Because it's completely ridiculous. What if we was just phoning it in? He's just going to come out and say it?
So in other words, you are just making an assumption.
I mean, I find it hard to believe too.
accidentally used a Chat-GPT paraphrased version of Shambaugh’s blog rather than a direct quote.
Is quite the umm…. Accident? So the ars writer pulled some junk from ChatGPT, and used it as a direct quote in the article by accident? I suppose maybe depends on how the ars writer takes notes, and maybe should be an opportunity for reflection on how they do that to not have this happen again. Especially since it sounds likely they do ai investigation as part of their main job.
I mean, the Covid piece is certainly interesting, and sounds like a failure of ars to offer real sick time or a backup writer or something. I’m not sure.
All around, a big mess. Though, the blog in question was a fascinating read.
I do not see it as being so implausible that he got mixed up due to being sick and thought he was doing one thing while he was actually doing another; as you said, among other things, he should probably reflect on how he takes notes.
I think that my overall point stands that there is not a good reason not to at least tentatively give him the benefit of the doubt that he screwed up in the way that he said that he screwed up, rather than assuming that he is lying and actually did something significantly worse, especially given that he fully admits to having screwed up and took full responsibility for it.
In other wrong words, yes. An assumption is not the same thing as a belief.
I don’t believe him.
I know the internet is full of untrustworthy charlatans, so I can't blame you, but I'm as anti-AI as they come and I do believe him. Mistakes happen, especially in the context of rushed work done while sick. Remember that a lie by a grifter and the truth from an innocent sometimes look exactly the same; effective lies are made off of what was once a truth, after all.
So you're calling for someone to be fired without actually reading the article or understanding the situation? What punishment do you deserve for your laziness?
The question is, how many other articles with fake quotes are there on Ars? And not just Ars, but across the mainstream media
I don’t see anything new? It’s a response, I was hoping they’d actually say what happened instead of… just repeating that it did.
Good response, and it sounds like lessons learned!
Agreed, why is why I really do not like how much people are beating on him, but the problem remains that he published an article with fabricated quotes, which hurts not only his own credibility but that of Ars as a whole. I think that it may be best for everyone if he applies the lessons that he learned at another place of employment.
(Also, though, Ars really needs to do something about its culture regarding working while sick, as that makes it inevitable that a mistake like this is going to be made, AI or not.)
I think beating him while he’s down is too much. Mean comments on the internet do not compare to having to find a new job while recovering from covid
Fair enough. Realistically, my understanding is that he and the other authors are part of WGA, so Ars would be required to go through an investigative process before firing him, which would probably take enough time that he would have had plenty of time to recover from COVID before having to hunt for a job.
Having said that, I am out for change, not for blood. I think that if Ars announced that the root problem was the lack of sick leave so it was a systemic failure rather than a personal failure (or something along those lines), then that might actually be a pretty good outcome as well.
i dont think any journalist, especially a technology journalist, should be using AI summaries in any capacity as part of their research. i'm glad he owned up to it but this should be a career damning event.
Yeah, you should lose your entire career for one mistake! Fucking up an article on the internet, can you imagine a worse sin???
He caused a massive shitshow, it’s already a mark on his career.
He was using the AI to help him extract quotes; it makes sense that, as the head AI writer, he would be experimenting with new AI tools to become more familiar with them. It sounds like he just got confused at some point at mixed up a paraphrasing of the AI tool with an original quote, and it sounds like he was not in the best shape when writing this article so he made a dumb mistake. Regardless, arguably the use of AI here is a red herring, because if he had double-checked his quotes and fixed them then it would not have mattered whether he used AI or not.
I think that damning his entire career over this would be too extreme. I suspect that his will be a very good learning experience for him, but that unfortunately he will need to apply his lessons at another place of employment.
I read them regularly for years until they started banning folk in the forums for pointing out how problematic it is for Eric Berger to still be slobbering on Elon's knob.
Don't think I'm missing much, though I do miss Beth Mole.
I think, all things considered, they handled this pretty well, and I'm actually more likely now to read an Ars article than before the article (when I had a neutral opinion).
It is 23.43, and I can't analyze this tonight. Ars has been good for a long while, and I enjoy their reporting. To have to reassess this is disappointing, but I've already had to feel this with the NYT and WaPo. Not exactly a huge loss here. But I want to fully investigate what happened ahead of reaching a conclusion.
Rest assured, I will reach a conclusion. I don't think I'll like the one I think I'll find, but that's journalism for you. I will withhold judgment until I've had a chance to fully examine what happened here.
Ars Technica is sorry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u0EL_u4nvw
Why should I bother to read your articles if you are no longer bothering to write them?
Someone in the hackernews comments links a bluesky post by the author of the article that adds more context: https://bsky.app/profile/benjedwards.com/post/3mewgow6ch22p. He claims the use of those quotes was an inadvertent mixup of his notes due to being sick and in a rush, and that he didn't intend to include any AI output in the final piece.
Even Scott Shambaugh writes as if there were no humans responsible:
Summary: An AI agent of unknown ownership autonomously wrote and published a personalized hit piece about me after I rejected its code, attempting to damage my reputation and shame me into accepting its changes into a mainstream python library.
As far as I know, every 'AI' agent runs as a consequence of one or more humans choosing to commit resources to install, configure and run it and those humans, therefore, are responsible for what it does. And, until 'AI' agents and the systems they run on spontaneously emerge and evolve from inert matter without human intervention, that will be the case. No agent does anything autonomously.
People should be held accountable for what their 'AI' agents do.
I think there’s still reasonable debate over whether or not a human actively triggered the agent to generate the hit piece.
The causes might be more or less proximate to the generation but the only 'reasonable' arguments I can think of are that they were mentally incompetent to know what they were doing or otherwise so negligent that they were unaware they were installing, configuring and providing power and Internet access to the agent. And in the case that they installed some device that reasonable was for some other purpose and they were unaware that the manufacturer of that device had configured it to generate hit pieces, then the manufacturer should be held responsible for it doing so.
Apologies, I meant something more along the lines of “this agent’s runner saw code got rejected and decided to actively go harass the repo maintainers” instead of the line the repo maintainers have taken where they assume “this bot attacked us autonomously after being rejected.”
I think there is a real distinction there as to how it happened and intent. But also, I think the person responsible for the agent should be held accountable either way.
Somewhat like the distinction between murder and negligent homicide. Or maybe more like, if someone who has a dog lets it run loose in the neighborhood and it attacks a person. They might not have been there commanding their dog to attack at the time, but they should still be held liable for the attack because they let their dog loose, unsupervised and they should at least be held accountable for not maintaining control of their dog when it was in public.
We agree on that 100%. No matter what, the owner of the agent did some dumbass shit. I fall in the camp that believes they proactively did dumb shit instead of the camp that believes through their inaction they did dumb shit. The whole situation to me feels like someone got their hand slapped and reacted poorly. I’ve seen this play out on forums for 30 years. Either the egotistical idiot burning resources on this chicanery actively did it or the fucking tools who built this destructive Rube Goldberg machine made it so the same fucking flame wars that add zero value keep happening in their new, perfect society. Everyone involved on the agent side needs to be removed from the internet permanently because they clearly have nothing to add to humanity.
This whole story is a little bit confusing since there are two entirely separate ethically questionable uses of AI by different parties, the person running the rogue coding agent, and the author of the Ars article using AI to misquote the victim of that coding agent.
Yes, and apologies. I just read three or four other posts/articles about various related events, and didn't think about the specific context of this post. At least Ars Technica accepts some responsibility for the misquotes. I was commenting on the other person who made the defamatory post and Scott Shambaugh's characterization of how that happened - not the post by Ars.
top 10 comments