zkfcfbzr

@zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Ars Technica Pulls Article With AI Fabricated Quotes About AI Generated Article⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Their retraction article makes it crystal clear that their reporters are not allowed to use AI output in articles at all, unless it’s explicitly for demonstration purposes. That rule was broken. They took appropriate action, apologized, and made a commitment to do better.

  I, frankly, believe them - ars is the news outlet I’ve frequented longer than any other for a reason. I understand if it’s going to take more for you to believe them, but it’s just one mistake. It’s also not clear to me what they could have done in this situation that would have felt like enough to you? Were you hoping for a play-by-play of who entered what into ChatGPT, or a firing or something?

  I’m also not sure I’d consider the saga over. It wouldn’t overly surprise me if at some point this week we get a longer article going into more detail about what happened.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Ars Technica Pulls Article With AI Fabricated Quotes About AI Generated Article⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I think their response is perfectly reasonable. They took the article down and replaced it with an explanation of why, and posted an extremely visible retraction with open comments on their front page. They even reached out and apologized to the person who had the made-up quote attributed to them.

  There are so many other outlets that would have just quietly taken the original article down without notice, or perhaps even just left it up.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Nintendo faces legal action over ability to brick Switch 2s whenever they want⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Do people really use the term “brick” to refer to consoles with permanent online bans? To me they’re very different and a brick is much worse.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨FCC to vote to restore net neutrality rules, reversing Trump⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  doing this while the Supreme Court is effectively captured by corporate interests seems risky

  If we wait for that to stop being true, it’ll just mean not doing it at all.

  doing this while the Supreme Court is effectively captured by corporate interests seems risky because it could further establish court precedent

  If there’s one thing the current court’s shown, it’s that precedent doesn’t mean diddly squat to the supreme court. If and when the court is ever returned to a respectable position I’m sure many of their current decisions will be overturned.