EDIT: The original link is now a 404 because Ars Technica apparently fabricated quotes, or possibly even generated the article in an extreme case of irony.
Here is some context:
https://mastodon.social/@nikclayton/116065459933532659
https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/journalistic-standards.1511650/
Here is the original (partially fabricated) archived article if you still want to read it: https://web.archive.org/web/20260213194851/https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/after-a-routine-code-rejection-an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-someone-by-name/
FYI, the article was presumably taken down because many of the quotes turned out to have been fabricated, and they said they were investigating this. (I don’t think that they are trying to cover up anything, just that they have not gotten around to written an official response yet, given that this is a recent development.)
Ugh, that is utterly disappointing to see from Ars Technica. Here’s a bit of context about it: https://mastodon.social/@nikclayton/116065459933532659
Fortunately, the article was already archived, for what it’s worth: https://web.archive.org/web/20260213194851/https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/after-a-routine-code-rejection-an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-someone-by-name/
You should edit your original post to use the archive link, as the main link now leads to a 404 error…
Why link to falsehoods without context?
I didn’t write the article, neither did OP.
If the article is false, well so be it, but at least the supposedly false article was archived.
Sometimes, even if an article proves to be false, readers in the future might still be curious what all the article said or claimed.
🤷
I think it’s best to leave the post link as is. I don’t want to point people to misinformation. I’ve added a post description instead with context and the archive link. If people downvote this post because of the 404, so be it.
That’s actually the even more proper way to handle it, thanks for the update 👍
Of course they were fabricated, by an AI.
More seriously, which quotes were you referring to?Sounds like the quotes from the person that wrote the blog
Blog post about this event by the someone in question: https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-me/
“AI agents can research individuals, generate personalized narratives, and publish them online at scale,” Shambaugh wrote. “Even if the content is inaccurate or exaggerated, it can become part of a persistent public record.”
– Ars Technica, misquoting me in “After a routine code rejection, an AI agent published a hit piece on someone by name“
The link to the article leads to a 404.
OP posted a working archive link in the comments…
You shouldn’t be posting that without the context in that comment:
FYI, the article was presumably taken down because many of the quotes turned out to have been fabricated, and they said they were investigating this. (I don’t think that they are trying to cover up anything, just that they have not gotten around to written an official response yet, given that this is a recent development.)
Ugh, that is utterly disappointing to see from Ars Technica. Here’s a bit of context about it: https://mastodon.social/@nikclayton/116065459933532659
Fortunately, the article was already archived, for what it’s worth: https://web.archive.org/web/20260213194851/https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/after-a-routine-code-rejection-an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-someone-by-name/
huh. That comment didn’t federate properly then.
