3 ms·
I think you're missing their point. The question you're replying to is, how do we know that this made up content is a hallucination. Ie., as opposed to being ma
by tempestn 8mo ago
I think you're missing their point. The question you're replying to is, how do we know that this made up content is a hallucination. Ie., as opposed to being made up by a human. I think it's fairly obvious via Occam's Razor, but still, they're not claiming the quotes could be legit.
- DonHopkins 8mo ago[dead]
- Lerc 8mo agoYou seem to be quite certain that I had not read the article, yet I distinctly remember doing do. By what proceess do you imagine I arrived at the conclusion that the article suggested that published quotes were LLM hallucinations when that was not mentioned in the article title? You accuse me of performative skepticism, yet all I think is that it is better to have evidence over assumptions, and it is better to ask if that evidence exists. It seems a much better approach than making false accusations based upon your own vibes, I don't think Scott Shambaugh went to that level though.
- DonHopkins 8mo agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47026071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47026071 https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/editors-note-retraction-of-article-containing-fabricated-quotations/ https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/editors-note-retractio... >On Friday afternoon, Ars Technica published an article containing fabricated quotations generated by an AI tool and attributed to a source who did not say them. That is a serious failure of our standards. Direct quotations must always reflect what a source actually said.