[DetroitThrow]

It was against their policy to use AI in producing any part of the final article, and the writer was aware of that.

I feel bad for the guy, but there's just no way I can imagine much better safeguards other than editors paying more close attention to referencing sources, and hiring more reliable people.

[autoexec]

> It was against their policy to use AI in producing any part of the final article, and the writer was aware of that.

More than that, as a reporter on AI he should have been fully aware that AI frequently bullshits and lies. He should have known it was not reliable and that its output needs to be carefully verified by a human if you care at all about the accuracy or quality of what it gives you. His excuse that this was done in a fever induced state of madness feels weak when it was his whole job to know that AI was not an appropriate tool for the task.

[Barbing]

>his whole job

Possibly akin to a roofer taking a shortcut up there, then taking a spill? You knew better but unfortunately let the fact that you could probably get away with it with zero impact decide for you.

IIRC hallucinations were essentially kicked off initially by user error, or rather… let’s say at least: a journalist using the best available technologies should have been able to reduce the chance of this big of an issue to near zero, even with language models in the loop & without human review.

(e.g. imagine Karpathy’s llm-council with extra harnessing/scripting, so even MORE expensive, but still. Or some RegEx!)

[true_religion]

Alternatively… there was no AI error, the reporter made up the quotes, and lied when they were challenged.

[bombcar]

The chance that the very first time AI was used it screwed up and was caught is pretty low.

It’s likely been used before but nobody got caught.

[Barbing]

Are you familiar with the reporter's work & reputation?

[true_religion]

Are we talking about the same guy who purportedly never even read an article with their name on it containing multiple insulting false quotes and was summarily dismissed?

Mind you, I’m not purporting malice but their choosing the blame AI rather than brain fog, bad notes, accidental transcription, or any other human error which would us look down upon them more.

Right now, AI errors like this are excusable. Soon they won’t be.

[tonyedgecombe]

You have to give them time to do the job properly as well. Companies will often pay lip service to standards then squeeze their staff so much those standards are impossible to attain.

[esperent]

Yes, those are exactly the kind of steps they would need to publicly commit to in order to retain trust. And yet, instead we get silence, no acceptance that some measure of responsibility falls on the editorial team here. So it's clear they just hope it'll blow over without them having to do anything, which is the opposite of what a trustworthy site would do.