4 ms·

The same thing happened to German magazine Spiegel recently, see the correction remark at the end of this article https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen

• kavith 11mo ago
  Fair play to them for owning up to their mistake, and not just pretending like it didn't happen!
  • bonesss 11mo ago
    As programmers I think we can extend some professional empathy and understanding: copy-and-pasting all day is a lot harder than you’d think.
    • tonyhart7 11mo ago
      compared to the writing yourself???? absolutely not
      • IAmBroom 11mo ago
        It was sarcastic.
  • CGamesPlay 11mo ago
    Maybe, although I'm a bit doubtful that they were 100% honest. > Entgegen unseren Standards
  • yard2010 11mo ago
    You're absolutely right! but they can shove this euphemism. Just say that chatgpt wrote the article and no one read it before publishing, no need for all the fluff.
    • phkahler 11mo ago
      >> Just say that chatgpt wrote the article and no one read it before publishing This is so interesting. I wonder if no human prompted for the article to be written either. I could see some kind of algorithm figuring out what to "write" about and prompting AI to create the articles automatically. Those are the jobs that are actually being replaced by AI - writing fluff crap to build an attention trap for ad revenue.
      • Cthulhu_ 11mo ago
        Very likely this already happens on slop websites (...which I can't name because I don't go there), which for example just republish press releases (which could be considered aggregation sites I guess), or which automatically scrape Reddit and translate them into listicles on the fly.
  • reaperducer 11mo ago
    Fair play to them for owning up to their mistake, and not just pretending like it didn't happen! That's what the legitimate media has done for the last couple of hundred years. Every issue of the New York Times has a Corrections section. I think the Washington Post's is called Corrections and Amplifications. Bloggers just change the article and hope it didn't get cached in the Wayback Machine.
  • constantcrying 11mo ago
    They do not deserve a shred of recommendation. This is just damage control, pretending that it did not happen never was an option. Instead they tried to claim that it was just a one of mistake. What it really shows is that nobody even bothers to read their articles before hitting publish and that AI is widely used internally.
• dredmorbius 11mo ago
  Scientific paper as well: <https://fediscience.org/@GeorgKrammer/115536337398227063 https://fediscience.org/@GeorgKrammer/115536337398227063> Original <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081> and retraction: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104081>.
  • roflmaostc 11mo ago
    I still think someone should have done this as a pun and get your paper trending everywhere.
• IAmBroom 11mo ago
  "We regret to admit that our editors don't actually take the time to read these articles before hitting the PUBLISH button..."
  • Cthulhu_ 11mo ago
    This is the real issue; I'm sure journalists already use loads of shortcuts to do their job efficiently but the end responsible is the editor(s).
  • SoftTalker 11mo ago
    The editors were laid off and replaced by an LLM. Or more likely, the editorial staff was cut in half and the ones who were kept were told to use LLMs to handle the increased workload.