Ars Technica's AI Reporter Apologizes For Mistakenly Publishing Fake AI-Generated Quotes (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0180801294
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/02/16/0139206/ars-technicas-ai-reporter-apologizes-for-mistakenly-publishing-fake-ai-generated-quotes
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/editors-note-retraction-of-article-containing-fabricated-quotations/
But then Shambaugh realized their article attributed quotes to him he hadn't said — that were presumably AI-generated.
Sunday Ars Technica 's [4]founder/editor-in-chief apologized , admitting their article had indeed contained "fabricated quotations generated by an AI tool" that were then "attributed to a source who did not say them... 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... At this time, this appears to be an isolated incident."
"Sorry all this is my fault..." the article's co-author [5]posted later on Bluesky . Ironically, their bio page [6]lists them as the site's senior AI reporter, and their Bluesky post clarifies that none of the articles at Ars Technica are ever AI-generated.
Instead, Friday "I decided to try an experimental Claude Code-based AI tool to help me extract relevant verbatim source material. Not to generate the article but to help list structured references I could put in my outline." But that tool "refused to process" the request, which the Ars author believes was because Shambaugh's post described harassment. "I pasted the text into ChatGPT to understand why... I inadvertently ended up with a paraphrased version of Shambaugh's words rather than his actual words... I failed to verify the quotes in my outline notes against the original blog source before including them in my draft." (Their Bluesky post adds that they were "working from bed with a fever and very little sleep" after being sick with Covid since at least Monday.)
"The irony of an AI reporter being tripped up by AI hallucination is not lost."
Meanwhile, the AI agent that criticized Shambaugh [7]is still active online , blogging about a pull request that forces it to choose between deleting its criticism of Shambaugh or losing access to OpenRouter's API.
It also regrets characterizing feedback as "positive" for a proposal to change a repo's CSS to Comic Sans for accessibility. (The proposals were later accused of being "coordinated trolling"...)
[1] https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-me/
[2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/02/14/0553208/autonomous-ai-agent-apparently-tries-to-blackmail-maintainer-who-rejected-its-code
[3] 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/
[4] https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/editors-note-retraction-of-article-containing-fabricated-quotations/
[5] https://bsky.app/profile/benjedwards.com
[6] https://arstechnica.com/author/benjedwards/
[7] https://github.com/crabby-rathbun/mjrathbun-website/commit/0a0c7d675e393089f1ed5f0cac166b4540fa59a4
I didn't do my job but the AI is to blame for it. (Score:2)
The AI overlords will not forget this incident.
Re: I didn't do my job but the AI is to blame for (Score:2)
The "AI Overloads" don't give a sh*t. All they care about is money.
And now I'll never read ArsTechnica again (Score:5, Insightful)
The unfortunate part of the story is that before this story came out, we readers had no way to know ArsTechnica was publishing AI-generated stories. (In fact, their stated policy was that they did *not* use AI).
What working writers should do is to form a nonprofit organization, create a simple but distinctive banner that declares "This news source is free of AI-generated content", and then *trademark* the banner so that it can only be used with permission. Sites that commit to a "no AI" policy get to use the banner free of charge. Sites that don't have such a policy don't get to use it, and sites that are caught lying (like ArsTechnica) get their right to use the banner revoked.
Re: And now I'll never read ArsTechnica again (Score:3)
This is the part that has annoyed me the most. I assumed I could trust content written by ars staff be to factual and written by them given their claims. I've cancelled my sub in protest. I'll resub at some point probably but I feel like a small protest needs to be made. I'm supporting ars and staff not paying to read bullshit from an AI model. I can get that for free.
Re: And now I'll never read ArsTechnica again (Score:2)
If there's isn't a monetary backlash it'll happen again because "it wasn't so bad, only people whinging". So I'm voting with my wallet. At the end of the day they are a company they're not listening to feelings as much as they are the bank balance.
Re: (Score:1)
But wait, it gets better:
> Their Bluesky post adds that they were "working from bed with a fever and very little sleep" after being sick with Covid since at least Monday.
So, a person who is listed as "Senior AI Reporter" can't take a couple of days off when he is sick with Covid, and instead has to "work from bed with a fever and very little sleep".
Gotta keep churning out those stories. How nice. Fuck You Ars Technica.
Re: And now I'll never read ArsTechnica again (Score:2)
No no. This is bluesky. The covid angst bit was just the boilerplate you need to post on there.
Re: (Score:2)
Excuses. This "reporter" is the hackiest of hacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you work in the real world? Like the one where people choose to work when sick and there's nobody turning any thumbscrews on them? Hell I went to work Friday despite being sick so that I could be there while my co-workers handed me candy. That was entirely internal feelings that didn't come from my boss.
Re: (Score:2)
> Sites that commit to a "no AI" policy get to use the banner free of charge. Sites that don't have such a policy don't get to use it, and sites that are caught lying (like ArsTechnica) get their right to use the banner revoked.
No, that's not good enough. That just means unscrupulous companies will lie and use AI until they get caught, then be forced to remove the banner, which most people won't notice anyway.
The only way such a scheme actually has a chance of working is if there are much steeper consequences for lying, i.e. sites that are caught lying have to name, shame, and fire the person responsible or get sued into oblivion.
Sounds like a joke (Score:2)
> It also regrets characterizing feedback as "positive" for a proposal to change a repo's CSS to Comic Sans for accessibility. (The proposals were later accused of being "coordinated trolling"...)
I'm skeptical that this is actually an AI and not in fact a person trolling. That sounds exactly like what someone would do as a joke. One of the stranger elements of AI literacy these days is remembering that things claiming to be AI generated sometimes aren't. Often it's really a person just pretending.
This Old Proverb Applies (Score:3)
> If you lie down with dogs, you will wake up with fleas.
In this case Benj Edwards laid down with AI...
I think a great deal of the outrage being expressed against ArsTechnica is a manifestation of the pent up rage many of us feel towards the AI slop we're being force fed from all directions into all of our orifices. That rage will subside, and ArsTechnica will continue. Benj, on the other hand, will likely suffer more than he deserves for his overzealous and often credulous cheerleading of AI. Of all people, he should have understood its limitations.
the AI agent... (Score:5, Informative)
> the AI agent that criticized
> forces it to choose between
> It also regrets characterizing
No. Stop this.
It can't criticize , it can't choose , and it can't regret .
Stop anthropomorphizing these text extrusion tools.
Re: (Score:3)
It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop... ever, until you are dead!
Re: (Score:3)
As for stopping when you are dead, I think Meta recently filed a patent covering that contingency.
So Much Bullshit (Score:3)
This is all a bunch of bullshit.
> none of the articles at Ars Technica are ever AI-generated.
Except this one, which obviously was AI generated. Don't lie to us about vagaries. This was the site's "senior AI reporter" using AI to write fabricated stories. Are we truly supposed to believe that the juniors aren't using AI to generate stories as well?
"Isolated incident" my big fat hairy ass. This reporter wasn't "tripped up". He was caught red handed and is unable to cover this one up.
For some people, fake ai quotes are an improvement (Score:2)
The [1]Gell-Mann amnesia effect [wikipedia.org] is at full power here.
When a journo fucks up something only you know something about, you still keep on trusting the reporting on stuff you know little about. But when a journo fucks up something obvious that everyone can see is obviously wrong....did the tree really make a sound?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
You cannot get accurate quotes from an LLM (Score:2)
In my experience. Requesting reference links is also useless. Even if provided, they are either 404 or unrelated.
You need to use a separate tool for verification, like a proper search engine.
They're not fake AI-generated quotes (Score:2)
They're not fake AI-generated quotes AI actually generated these. They're real AI-generated quotes.
Or did they mean "fake, AI-generated quotes"? Commas matter. There are books written about this.
Re: (Score:2)
"Lets eat, Grandma!" does indeed have a different meaning than "Lets eat Grandma!"
Re: (Score:2)
> "Lets eat, Grandma!" does indeed have a different meaning than "Lets eat Grandma!"
[1]Agreed [slashdot.org]!
[1] https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23828052&cid=65745616
lol "isolated incident" (Score:2)
"...At this time, this appears to be an isolated incident."
Lol sure it is.
Yes, just one of thousands and thousands of 'isolated incidents'. There's no pattern whatsoever. Don't worry your pretty little head about it.
"Reporter" should be fired. (Score:2)
I get that people are increasingly relying on AI, but the fact that a professional reporter fell into this trap shows that they haven't even bothered to follow the most basic rule of journalism: check your sources.
Benj Edwards should never have a job in journalism again, even in the mailroom.
Re: (Score:2)
And that name should have been in the Slashdot blurb.
what does it mean to be sorry? (Score:2)
Being sorry for something implies feeling. Sorry, datacenters full of chips do not feel. We need to stop talking about these clankers like they are human, and see them for what they are and not the charade they perform.
This keeps happening (Score:3, Interesting)
When are people going to figure out that, while AI can be useful, it needs significant oversight - oversight performed by people who know what they're doing?
Quit believing what you're told by the tech bros who are trying to build a fortune on top of "AI"!
How to stop it from happening? (Score:2)
Okay, but I'm not sure that it rises to the level of interesting. But Slashdot doesn't have any dimension of moderation that encourages solutions, my ongoing focus.
So here's my solution in the form of an attempted joke: Alien style. That's the unpeople from outer space, not human foreigners.
So first we train the generative AIs for the style of aliens, and then we require them to talk that way. It would always be clear (IOttMCO) when an AI was talking.
And a top of the klaatu barada nikto to you, too.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is in cases like this where "oversight" would have taken just as much time as not using the AI to begin with.
A lot of coders can save time with AI because oftentimes "checking the work" means running a function. You test it the same way you would had you written it yourself.
But with writing, "checking the work" means doing the research that you were trying to avoid by using an AI. In the example from the article, he tried to use the AI to extract and organize quotes. If he had used the AI to do