Item — HN Reader

Former technology journalist here.

If you want to experiment with reported news using untested tools that have known quality problems, do it in a strictly controlled environment where the output can be carefully vetted. Senior editor(s) need to be in the loop. Start with something easier, not controversial or high-profile articles.

One other thing. If the author cut corners because he's too sick to write, but did so anyway because he thought his job would be in jeopardy if he didn't publish, maybe it's time for some self-reflection at Ars regarding the work culture and sick leave/time-off policies.

7 comments

> One other thing. If the author cut corners because he's too sick to write, but did so anyway because he thought his job would be in jeopardy if he didn't publish, maybe it's time for some self-reflection at Ars regarding the work culture and sick leave/time-off policies.

It sounds like you're implying that's what happened here, but I don't see any of that in the article. Was additional info shared elsewhere?

Edit: oh, I see links to the article author's social media saying this. Nevermind my question, and I agree.

Took me a while to find, here's one of the authors Benj Edwards with a statement on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/benjedwards.com/post/3mewgow6ch22p

looking at the statement, I find it weird that Benj Edwards is trying very hard to remove the blame from Kyle Orland, Even if he is not directly responsible.

Not weird. Kyle will take a massive career hit, as a result of this.

I’d say that some of the onus is on Kyle, anyway, as he should vet anything he slaps his name on (I do), but it sounds like he really didn’t have anything to do with it.

Despite the aspersions against the company for their sick time policy (which might actually be valid), the other corporate pressure might be to force their employees to incorporate AI tools into their work. That’s become quite common, these days.

He is taking responsibility because it is by his omission his mistake. That is what grown ups do. He probably feels an immense sense of guilt, even if it was an honest mistake.

Not weird. Taking blame on himself rather than the junior reporter was the most -- the only? -- professional thing about this whole snafu.

Not sure how widespread an occurrence in the industry at large, but in two slowly dying publications I'm familiar with, the editors were the first to be let go.

Quality took a nosedive, which may or may not have quickened the death spiral.

All that to say, there may not even be senior editors around to put in the loop.

The good news is that there are 3 senior editors (though none tasked with AI specifically), the bad news is that one of them was the coauthor. Their staff page does list two copy editors (variously labeled "copy editor" and "copyeditor" which is unfortunate) but no one assigned to fact checking specifically.

I think this is entirely plausible lapse for someone with a bad fever, especially if they routinely work from home and are primarily communicating over text-based channels. Personally I'm much more inclined to blame the organization, as it sounds like they knowingly accepted work from someone who was potentially going to be in an altered mental state.

In mainstream journalism wasn't the practice to have a junior position research and confirm quotes, dates, proper names, etc?

Those are exactly the types of jobs that have been disappearing for years (not because of AI, but because of Internet). Same with editors. I regularly see embarrassing typos in major publications.

Is anyone actually embarrassed by typos these days? It doesn't seem so judging by the quantity of them.

It is a very visible indicator of the quality of the whole. If the spelling is frequently not correct, which a reader can detect relatively easily, how many more mistakes are hidden in the content, which a reader can not detect easily? Are these completely independent variables? I do not think so. Therefore, I also assess the reliability of an article based on the frequency of careless mistakes.

What is an even larger warning sign, are cliches used to spice up an article. Ars Technica is hardly to blame here, but the Smithsonian magazine is full of it.

My mother[0] was a scientific editor, and she was brutal. She was a stickler for proper English, as well as content accuracy.

She once edited a book I wrote. It was humbling as hell, but it may be the only "perfect" thing that I've ever done (but it did not age well, and has since gone the way of the Dodo).

[0] https://cmarshall.com/miscellaneous/SheilaMarshall.htm

> strictly controlled environment where the output can be carefully vetted

I don't know journalism from the inside, though of course it's one of those professions that everyone things they understand and has an opinion about. Realistically, is it especially careful vetting to verify the quotes and check the factual statements? The quotes seem like especially obvious risks - no matter how sick, who would let an LLM write anything without verifying quotes?

That seems like not verifying currency figures in an estimate or quote, and especially in one written by an LLM - I just can't imagine it. I'd be better off estimating the figures myself or removing them.

Possibly the author doesn't understand LLMs well.

I can't help but think this is a reflection of the unwillingness of most people to actually pay for journalism online — and worse, the active and intentional effort to subvert copyright, making it more difficult for journlists to actually earn a living from their work.

People don't value journalism. They expect it to be free, generally. Therefore, companies like Ars are put into a position of expecting too much from their journalists.

HN is rife with people with this attitude -- frequently linking to "archive" sites for otherwise paywalled articles, complaining when companies try to build email lists, charge for their work, or have advertising on their sites. The underlying message, of course, is that journalism shouldn't be paid for.

Yes, Ars is at fault if they have a bad company culture. However, the broader culture is a real factor here as well.

>>he thought his job would be in jeopardy if he didn't publish

Where'd you get this from? The author's response on Bluesky doesn't imply this at all.