Discussion
Senior European journalist suspended over AI-generated quotes
abaieorro: > I wrongly put words into people’s mouths, when I should have presented them as paraphrasesJournalists were doing this for decades. Stitching and editing words out of context, to put words into peoples mouths! I will take AI halucinations over journalism anytime, at least machine has no hostile intent, and is making geunine error!
phreack: > “It is particularly painful that I made precisely the mistake I have repeatedly warned colleagues about: these language models are so good that they produce irresistible quotes you are tempted to use as an author. Of course, I should have verified them. The necessary ‘human oversight’, which I consistently advocate, fell short.”What? Irresistible quotes? This betrays a terrible way of thinking as a journalist. Basically an admission of wanting to fake news that'd sound good. At that point just write fiction.
hulitu: > I will take AI halucinations over journalists halucinations anytime, at least machine has no hostile intent,Famous last words. What do you think is the main application for AI ? Spreading propaganda.
PeterStuer: "Journalism" over here seems to have died a long time ago. Most if not all of the former "quality newspapers" unfortunately seem to have devolved into what could be more accurately described as "pro regime activist blogs".
garciansmith: The idea that somehow AI is magically unbiased and not influenced by those making it is incorrect.
Chinjut: Good lord, even the apology is AI generated: "That was not just careless—it was wrong."https://pressanddemocracy.substack.com/p/i-am-admitting-my-m...
intended: I’m tempted to agree, but this is a case where I think there’s more human than AI. Maybe he used LLMs for a bit, and changed parts of it. Maybe he is patient zero for LLM speak?
sofixa: > Basically an admission of wanting to fake news that'd sound goodHow did you read that? Something sounding good and making sense and you wanting it to be true doesn't mean you'd fake it.
Obscurity4340: Cant you, like, ask or instruct it to create a bibliography with the citations or at least put the source of any quotes next to it for reviewing purposes?
maxrmk: Ironic coming from the Guardian. One of their journalists consistently publishes ai slop and the paper is in denial about it.https://x.com/maxwelltani/status/2023089526445371777?s=46
zarzavat: It doesn't seem AI generated to me. Are we at the point where you have to write in a particularly outrageous style in order to not be accused of using AI?
camillomiller: I have witnessed in person what LLMs have done to the mind of seemingly intelligent people. It’s a disaster.
cinntaile: Don't leave us hanging. What happened?
camillomiller: A CTO sent me a message that opened with:“Here’s a friendly message that will perfectly convey what you want to say”.A double PhD friend says she has to talk to chatGPT for all sort of advice and can’t feel safe not doing it, “because you know I’m single and don’t have a companion to spitball my ideas”. She let chatGPT decide which way to take to get to a certain island, and she got stranded because the suggested service didn’t exist.I have more examples. It’s a fucking mind virus.
sigseg1v: How is the getting stranded example different than asking on a travel forum how to get somewhere, and an active and well intentioned user that isn't familiar with your area of travel answers, gives you wrong instructions, and you get lost?
philipp-gayret: This is either ChatGPT or the one journalist who influenced all of ChatGPT's writing style.
gruez: If you look at the replies[1] to that tweet, many commenters point out his style was entirely different prior to chatgpt.[1] https://xcancel.com/maxwelltani/status/2023089526445371777?
philipp-gayret: I was giving this the benefit of the doubt as well and was just looking at his older writings that have a little "This article is more than 5 years old" banner above it. Looks totally different indeed.
shahbaby: > That was not just careless – it was wronglol
crop_rotation: HN is full of people saying ABCD should know better and honestly I thought the same, but when I look at almost all of my friends working in critical domains like as a judge or engineer or lawyer or even doctor, they seem to trust ChatGPT more or less blindly. People get defensive when I point out out to them that ChatGPT will make things up and it is widely know, and some even tell me it is the fault of "tech people" for not fixing it and they can't be expected to double check every chatgpt conversation. So I am very sure this problem is more prevalent than what we see and also that it is going to continue increasing.
andrewflnr: Your friends should know better. That their behavior is prevalent does not contradict that.
joe_mamba: >but when I look at almost all of my friends working in critical domains like as a judge or engineer or lawyer or even doctor, they seem to trust ChatGPT more or less blindlyThat's why I lost trust and faith in people who end up in positions of doctor, lawyer or judge. When I was young I used to think they must be the smartest most high-IQ people in the world, having read the most books and have the highest levels of critical thinking and debate skills ever. When in fact they were only good at memorizing and regurgitating the right information required to pass the exam that gave them that prestigious title. It's a miracle society functions at all.
doctorpangloss: on the flip side, so much chatgpt usage, full of flaws, doesn't seem to really matter in various "critical domains." you can't generalize "critical."
the_biot: His non-apology apology even follows a familiar pattern: I wrote it myself but just used AI for some help, and it inserted false quotes! Bad tech! But I have now learned my lesson!Very similar to what a rector recently wrote when she got busted giving an AI-generated speech in her inaugural speech in her new university job.None of it is true, of course. These people are just sorry they got caught.
