4 ms·

This is not using AI to “assist in writing your articles”. This is using AI to report your articles, and then passing it off as your own research and analysis.

by danso 8mo ago

This is not using AI to “assist in writing your articles”. This is using AI to report your articles, and then passing it off as your own research and analysis. This is straight up plagiarism, and if the allegations are true, the reporters deserve what they would get if it were traditional plagiarism: immediate firings.

meowface 8mo ago
Yeah, I have been extremely pro-AI and have been for decades, and I use LLMs daily, but this is not an acceptable use of an LLM. Especially since it's fabricating quotes, so there's the plagiarism issue and then the veracity issue. And it's doing this to report on an incident of someone being bizarrely accosted by LLMs. Just such a ridiculous situation all around.
- ddtaylor 8mo ago
  Do you think Ars is lazy or ambitious?
  - bombcar 8mo ago
    Anyone ambitious left after Condé Nast showed up. So that leaves one option remaining.
jcgrillo 8mo ago
Not just the reporter, anyone who had eyes on it before it was published. And whoever is responsible for setting the culture that allowed this to happen.
ddtaylor 8mo ago
> This is straight up plagiarism More likely libel. > the reporters deserve what they would get if it were traditional plagiarism: immediate firings. I don't give a fuck who gets fired when I have been publicly defamed. I care about being compensated for damages caused to me. If a tow truck company backed into my house I would be much less concerned about the internal workings of some random tow truck company than I would be ensuring my house was repaired.
stingraycharles 8mo ago
I thought it was very obvious AI is doing almost everything of most of the news outlets these days. Especially the ones that only ever had an online presence.
grey-area 8mo ago
Absolutely inevitable if you condone using GAI to ‘assist’ in writing. The inevitable outcome is reporters just writing prompts and giving it a quick once over, then skipping the last step because they believe the companies selling generative AI and/or are under time pressure and it seems good enough. They are word generators. That is their function, so if you use them words will be generated that are not yours and which are sometimes nonsense and made up. The problem here was not plagiarism but generated falsehoods.

by danso 8mo ago

meowface 8mo ago

Yeah, I have been extremely pro-AI and have been for decades, and I use LLMs daily, but this is not an acceptable use of an LLM. Especially since it's fabricating quotes, so there's the plagiarism issue and then the veracity issue. And it's doing this to report on an incident of someone being bizarrely accosted by LLMs. Just such a ridiculous situation all around.

ddtaylor 8mo ago
Do you think Ars is lazy or ambitious?
- bombcar 8mo ago
  Anyone ambitious left after Condé Nast showed up. So that leaves one option remaining.

jcgrillo 8mo ago

Not just the reporter, anyone who had eyes on it before it was published. And whoever is responsible for setting the culture that allowed this to happen.

ddtaylor 8mo ago

> This is straight up plagiarism More likely libel. > the reporters deserve what they would get if it were traditional plagiarism: immediate firings. I don't give a fuck who gets fired when I have been publicly defamed. I care about being compensated for damages caused to me. If a tow truck company backed into my house I would be much less concerned about the internal workings of some random tow truck company than I would be ensuring my house was repaired.

stingraycharles 8mo ago

I thought it was very obvious AI is doing almost everything of most of the news outlets these days. Especially the ones that only ever had an online presence.

grey-area 8mo ago

Absolutely inevitable if you condone using GAI to ‘assist’ in writing. The inevitable outcome is reporters just writing prompts and giving it a quick once over, then skipping the last step because they believe the companies selling generative AI and/or are under time pressure and it seems good enough. They are word generators. That is their function, so if you use them words will be generated that are not yours and which are sometimes nonsense and made up. The problem here was not plagiarism but generated falsehoods.