The author of the blog post hypothesised that the fabrication happened as a result of measures blocking LLMs from scraping their blog. If that is the case, adding more LLMs would not in fact accomplish anything at all.
2,202 karma · joined October 22, 2025
> I also feel compelled to point out you've abandoned your claim that the article was generated.
As you've pointed out, neither of us has a crystal ball, and I can't definitively prove the extent of their usage. However, why would I have any reason to believe their LLM usage stops merely at fabricating quotes? I think you are again engaging in the most charitable position possible, for things that I think are probably 98 or 99% likely to be the result of malicious intent. It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that someone who prompts an LLM to source their "facts" would also prompt an LLM to write for them - it doesn't really make sense to be opposed to using an LLM to write on your behalf but not be opposed to it sourcing stories on your behalf. All the more so if your rationale as the author is that the story is unimportant, beneath you, and not worth the time to research.
I also do not believe this was a genuine result of incompetence. I entertained that it is possible, but that would be the most charitable view possible, and I don't think the benefit of doubt is earned in this case. They routinely cover LLM stories, the retracted article being about that very subject matter, so I have very little reason to believe they are ignorant about LLM hallucinations. If it were a political journalist or something, I would be more inclined to give the ignorance defense credit, but as it is we have every reason to believe they know what LLMs are and still acted with intention, completely disregarding the duty they owe to their readers to report facts.
Neither of those software are primarily responsible for the revenue, either. The actual models underlying them are, not the trivial CLI chat interface (which, despite being trivial software, still manages to be full of bugs that go unfixed for months). I also don't even think it's true that Codex is primarily agent-written. OpenAI specifically cited using Electron in their recent Codex desktop application for "agent orchestration" to save human developer time on porting it across platforms, which does not sound like a successful exercise in eating their dog food.
we're really at the point where people are just writing off a journalist passing off their job to a chatgpt prompt as though that's a normal and defensible thing to be doing
> Kudos to ARS for catching this and very publicly stating it.
> Thank you for upholding your journalistic standards. And a note to our current administration in DC - this is what transparency looks like.
> Thank you for upholding the standards of journalism we appreciate at ars!
> Thank you for your clarity and integrity on your correction. I am a long time reader and ardent supporter of Ars for exactly these reasons. Trust is so rare but also the bedrock of civilization. Thank you for taking it seriously in the age of mass produced lies.
> I like the decisive editorial action. No BS, just high human standards of integrity. That's another reason to stick with ARS over news feeds.
There is some criticism, but there is also quite a lot of incredible glazing.
> The Supreme Court declined to extend the third-party doctrine to tracking one's location via cell-phone metadata in Carpenter v. U.S., 585 U.S. 296 (2018), so it's not absolute.
In other words, principles are law -- in the US, whatever the principles of 9 judges at a given time, because they are the final arbiter of what anything written down by Congress means. "Third-party doctrine" is not law as written by Congress, it is something the Supreme Court made up out of thin air according to their principles. And these principles are not binding; a later panel of judges is free to throw out the rulings of older judges if they decide their principles differ, as famously happened to Roe v. Wade among other cases.
PS. If you're claiming that coding an application is ultra-expensive, you are already entering the argument on the side of the comment you're arguing against, which is making a counterpoint to the article, which claims in the first sentence:
> The math is simple: if it costs almost nothing to build an app, it costs almost nothing to clone an app. And if cloning is free, subscription pricing dies.
It is worth noting that consumers are completely and totally incapable of detecting quality degradation with any accuracy. Which is a given since the models are already effectively random, but there is a strong bent to hallucinate degradations. Having done frontend work for an AI startup, complaints of degrading the model were by far the most common, despite the fact that not only did our model not change, users could easily verify that it didn't change because we expose seeds. A significant portion of complainers continue to complain about model degradation even when shown they could regenerate from the same seed+input and get the exact same output. Humans, at scale, are essentially incapable of comprehending the concept of randomness.
> because in the course of my education I was taught to conduct experiments and confirm reality for myself. I have never once found what is written about hard science in Britannica to not be in accord with my observed reality,
It's in the same sentence I mentioned Britannica!
> you’re still not checking any facts by yourself
Did you perhaps read it but not understand what my sentence meant because you don't know what an experiment is? Were you not taught to do scientific experiments in your schooling? Literally the entire point of my entire post is that I do not trust blindly, but choose who I trust based on their ability to accurately report the facts I observe for myself without fail. CNN, as with every media outlet I've ever encountered in my entire life, publishes things I can verify to be false. So too does some guy on Twitter with 100 million followers. Britannica does not, at least as it pertains to hard science.
I would expect there is literally zero overlap between the "professionals"[1] who say "don't look at the code" and the ones criticising the "journalists"[2]. The former group tend to be maximalists and would likely cheer on the usage of LLMs to replace the work of the latter group, consequences be damned.
[1] The people that say this are not professional software developers, by the way. I still have not seen a single case of any vibe coder who makes useful software suitable for deployment at scale. If they make money, it is by grifting and acting as an "AI influencer", for instance Yegge shilling his memecoin for hundreds of thousands of dollars before it was rugpulled.
[2] Somebody who prompts an LLM to produce an article and does not even so much as fact-check the quotations it produces can clearly not be described as a journalist, either.
For example, let's take the Uyghur situation in China. I have no ability to check reality there, as I do not live in and have no intention of ever visiting China. My information environment is what the Chinese government reports and what various media outlets and NGOs report. As it turns out, both the Chinese government and media and NGOs report on other things that I can check against reality, eg. events that happen in my country, and I know that they both routinely report falsehoods that do not accord with my observed reality. As a result, I have zero trust in either the Chinese government or media and NGOs when it comes to things that I cannot personally verify, especially when I know both parties have self-interest incentives to report things that are not true. Therefore, the conclusion is obvious: I do not know and can not know what is happening around Uyghurs in China, and do not have a strong opinion on the subject, despite the attempts of various parties to put information in front of me with the intention to get me to champion their viewpoint. This really does not make me an extra special intellectual powerhouse, one would hope. I'd think this is the bare minimum. The fact that there are many people who do not meet this bare minimum is something that reflects poorly on them rather than highly on me.
On the other hand, I trust what, for instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica has to say about hard science, because in the course of my education I was taught to conduct experiments and confirm reality for myself. I have never once found what is written about hard science in Britannica to not be in accord with my observed reality, and on top of that there is little incentive for the Britannica to print scientific falsehoods that could be easily disproven, so it has earned my trust and I will believe the things written in it even if I have not personally conducted experiments to verify all of it.
Anyone can check their information sources against reality, regardless of their intelligence. It is a choice to believe information that is put in front of you without checking it. Sometimes a choice that is warranted once trust is earned, but all too often a choice that is highly unwarranted.
No, we're not. There are a lot of people with a very large financial stake in telling us that this is the future, but those of us who still trust our own two eyes know better.
What an inane comment. Much like LLMs are completely incapable of replacing me in software development, they are likewise completely incapable of replacing a human's ability to detect LLM-generated output. It is absolutely possible for a human to build sufficient heuristics to detect it, and it is not possible to automate this process in such a way that it can be sold as a service. The idea that everything can be automated and that human skills are irrelevant is a complete farce which is easily disproven by the fact that even the frontier "AI" labs are still relying on human labour and producing eg. Electron to provide a chat GUI in a desktop application.
If the bot owner happens to waste their time reading the responses to the dozens of comments one of their many spambots made, and improves the bots as a result, so be it. They're already winning the war as it stands, not like things can get much worse. I'd like to at least try to make an effort to make things better.
Maybe the actual answer is that I just need to stop using HN, though, since the spambots are taking over the site and yet people are more concerned with the people pointing that out than the actual problem.