Post #611953

2026-03-03 04:49 UTC

The problem with your attitude towards this is that these companies are forcing “AI” down everyone’s throat. It’s a requirement now to churn out more bullshit than humanly possible. This person was simply fired because they didn’t catch the false information,not because they used the tools forced upon them.

Replies (4)

@ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-03-03 05:44

Sifting through information to find out what’s true and what’s not, before presenting it to the public, is a pretty crucial task and ability for an actual journalist though. It is probably one of the most important parts of their job to verify the correctness of their sources and what they write.

Open ##612871
@MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 2026-03-03 05:44

I don’t work at Ars, and maybe you know something I don’t, but I have seen nothing to suggest that they’re one of the companies doing that. It seems like they are pretty open about how they do not allow AI to be used in the process. Have they said something to indicate otherwise and I just misssed it?

Open ##612874
@mrmaplebar@fedia.io 2026-03-03 05:53

To be fair to Ars Technica, that doesn't sound like the case to me. The "journalist" in question seems to be suggesting that this was their own bad judgment to use AI to "find relevant quotes" from the source material. Having said that, there's also a senior editor on the by-line who hasn't been held accountable for clearly failing to do their job, which as I understand it, is to read, edit and verify the contents of the article. So in a way Ars seems to have a problem with quality whether or not the use of AI was mandated.

Open ##613148
@Fmstrat@lemmy.world 2026-03-04 12:02

Absolutely not. Ars has a no AI policy, it's the exact opposite. Guessing you are a nice little bot.

Open ##2102855