this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
93 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck AI

5900 readers
1767 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Likely AI, because otherwise they just made up some quotes on their own. Either is egregious journalistic malpractice. But we all know which one it was.

The maintainer reported in the comments of the article that he is exclusively misquoted in the 2nd half of the article (including misquoted calling himself a “gatekeeper”).

Edit: I did confirm all misquotes from archive versions of the blog and ars article. But I also read the blog yesterday and have memory and it hasn’t changed

Edit 2: Ars took down the article, replaced with archive.org. And here’s the blog archive version

https://web.archive.org/web/20260213082753/https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-me/

Edit 3: they have posted a retraction notice and the original link now says the story is retracted instead of being a 404 https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/editors-note-retraction-of-article-containing-fabricated-quotations/

Edit 4:
The maintainer, Scott, posted about getting AI zooped twice as well:

https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-me-part-2/

Edit 5: the retraction notice is shit; doesn’t even say what was retracted. It also makes it sound like only the quotes were the only LLM-generated thing; it’s much much more likely the latter half of the article is LLM-generated in its entirety

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I saw this go down more or less live. I saw the article, but I didn't bother to fact check it. I came back later and saw the comments, including the Scott guy coming in and saying he never said half that shit and it was implied at least the second half of the article was hallucinated by AI, and then the deafening panicked radio silence from staff (who are usually quick to banter with commenters in the forum).

When I got home from work to tell my wife about it (she's an artist, so she hates AI more than most), the article had been taken down.

Ars' de facto head man Aurich (not the guy who founded the site, but the site's mouthpiece) took responsibility for deleting the article, and promised an investigation Tuesday (as Monday is apparently an American holiday and they are enjoying a 3 day weekend). So I would say watch Ars Tuesday to see what, if anything, they say about it then. He said this in response to a forum post in their help forum calling them out for using AI to write their posts. And he shut that conversation down, too (but did not delete the thread).

I like Ars, though. I used to have an account, and once exchanged many unkind messages with their staff. I always liked their articles, though, and I generally trust them to do the right thing. I assume what happened here was some kind of deadline, one writer asked the other for help and they used a chatbot to write part of it, didn't check, and called it a day. It was sloppy work and they absolutely deserve to be called out and dragged through the mud, but they should also be given a chance to make it right. Depending on how they handle this, I will continue to read them (and I hope they handle it right).

[–] glizzyguzzler@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

They got around to it today it seems https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/editors-note-retraction-of-article-containing-fabricated-quotations/

Edit: they just admitted it occurred but this is basically the baby-babiest of retraction notices. Doesn’t even mention the article directly?? Pretty weak shit

Nice. And it highlights a weakness of their commenting system. So anyone who posts anything that goes against their hivemind gets downvoted, but not only can you still see it, but others quoting it and arguing with them get upvoted, so the content they worked so hard to hide (specifically, Ars readers) isn't hidden after all. So one guy said the article is on the Internet Archive and people rushed to censor him, but I mean, anyone can unhide it without even registering. And if anyone quotes it, they're back to zero again and have to start dogpiling on that message. But again, you don't have to register to unhide messages. And of course we have the article link here. So they're really not hiding shit.