Ars Technica retracted an article about how AI is making the world worse because...the Ars article itself contained AI-generated quotes in it.

[nopatience@swecyb.com]

@wdormann @jerry

The allure of using AI is the Siren song apparently few can resist.

[rotopenguin@mastodon.social]

@jerry @wdormann *five alarm fire going off at my newspaper* Ehh, that's a Monday problem

[jerry@infosec.exchange]

@nopatience @wdormann What I can't tell from the notice is whether the author of the Ars article used AI that fabricated the quotes, or the author quoted an external source that was written by AI which included fabricated quotes. Based on the context of this overall situation as well as Ars' internal policy on AI use, I am leaning toward the latter, which seems likely to already be an enormous problem that we have yet to actually recognize given the percentage of content on the internet that is wholly AI generated these days.

[wdormann@infosec.exchange]

@jerry @nopatience
There's an archive.org archive of the article, but I suppose I can't be bothered to spend any time reading it.

[wdormann@infosec.exchange]

@jerry @nopatience
The dead internet theory is becoming true faster than anybody could have imagined.

[derekheld@infosec.exchange]

@wdormann also very light on the details. What I care more about is what they are doing to make sure it didn’t happen again.

[killab33z_og@hispagatos.space]

@wdormann I will always refuse to use #AI! People need to start actually thinking and stop relying on this #FakeIntelligence BS.

[drwho@masto.hackers.town]

@wdormann Arse Technica strikes again.

[akmur@livellosegreto.it]

@Killab33z_OG that's cool if you can

[leonardof@bertha.social]

@wdormann @jerry @nopatience

Someone said the source didn't have to quotes, but I didn't check.

To be fair, I'm happy for the proper retraction. Until a few hours ago, the latest news for me was that they had pulled the article as if had never been published.