Editor’s Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

We are reinforcing our editorial standards following this incident.

See full article...

 

[eduardopozo56]

I've been a Pro subscriber for quite a while now, and I want to preface what I say below by stating I'm not threating my subscription over this. Journalism is extremely undervalued and it would be reactionary to dismiss the whole outfit over one or two writers.



I also don't expect Ars to fire writers on such short notice. I'm mad, but it'd be irresponsible to fire staff without at least investigating what happened. I don't want a head on a pike, I want to know how this happened and what Ars will do going forward to prevent it happening again.

That being said, I expect better from Ars' writers. If I found out one of Beth Mole's medical nightmare stories didn't actually happen, or some component of it was fabricated, I don't think I could ever enjoy their pieces again.

Unfortunately, until that happens I cannot trust these two journalists. I'm not interested in reading potential misinformation on hot topics. If I wanted that I'd still be using twitter. So, for their sake, please publish a follow-up to this.

What happened is clear. One of the journalists used AI, to extract info from a (VERY SHORT) blog post that he could not bother to read (why?), and the AI hallucinated.
At that point, he was already braking Ars policies.

He then proceeded to not fact-check and publish the information he got from the AI, and only got caught because the Author of the original information is an Ars user, saw the hallucinated quotes and commented out.

This was such a momumental chain of errors from the author that i cannot comprehend how he did not stop at any step.

Add that to the "fun" part that the article he was checking was about AI and missuse of it.

 

[accantant]

Putting aside my general dislike and distrust of AI, and generally not being a fan of Benj's articles (as these generally read as overly positive or at least lacking serious critique): I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

Being sick can do weird things to you, and I'm willing to believe that it's an isolated incident.
Likewise, I don't fault Kyle or the editor for not "catching" this - if they think he's earned that level of trust, that's fine.

What I don't understand nor accept is why Benj was working even though he himself understood that he was in no state of mind to do his job properly. Why did Ars let someone work while sick?

 

[Damdaman]

I'm just glad that everyone's finally calmed down now that we're on page... 16! Jesus!

 

[madflier]

now that we're on page... 16!

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but...

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

I had respect for your position right until you said you were going to read the articles you no longer trusted anyway.

It doesn't have to be a binary position because Ars is far bigger than any one of its staff. Someone can step back and evaluate their sense of value considering what does and doesn't seem worth their money. They may decide that there are enough good contributions that Ars isn't worth dropping completely, but also not feel comfortable supporting directly.

Is it compartmentalizing? I think that may be unavoidable. At the end of the day, we only have three ways to try and affect change when we encounter problems at Ars: post our arguments for it, use our wallets, or take away our eyeballs entirely. People are going to land in different places along that spectrum.

Too many people are clearly out for blood because of their personal feelings about AI

Or they are "out for blood" because they want Ars to be trustworthy and reliable.

I have upvoted posts calling for Benj's removal and I've upvoted posts calling for him to stay on. For the most part what I've upvoted and advocated for is continued transparency and engagement with us on this retraction, and posts that contribute meaningfully to the discussion.

 

[acefsw]

The editorial & review process is still my biggest curiosity about Ars in general.

I wouldn't say it's "frequently" but a couple times a year we get those its-Friday-and-a-new-writer-puts-out-something-clearly-not-up-to-Ars-expectations articles. Those articles get immediately roasted in the comments (rightfully so), then eventually an editor comes in to apologize and do damage control.

What exactly is the review process here? If there is oversight, why can't they predict these articles which crumble after 2 minutes of analysis by the readership? Who has the authority to push the button on posting a new story? How are accuracy and facts being confirmed?

This is one of my biggest gripes. I've seen it happen on several occasions and in real time and others I missed, (what was the context? It only leaves me with questions) and what bothers me is that the process hasn't improved over time. Instead, it's always seems to be the same - pull article, lock any comments, and give some context free or double down mea culpa. They really need to do better.

 

[chateauarusi]

Hello from Europe, everybody! I'm back from a nice long getaway weekend with my wife. Did I miss anything interesting on the site while I was gone?

...

...

Well, shit.

 

[nickf]

What I don't understand nor accept is why Benj was working even though he himself understood that he was in no state of mind to do his job properly. Why did Ars let someone work while sick?

Being sick sucks, being sick in the US sucks even more.

Clearly mistakes have been made here, perhaps by both employee and employer, and I hope that the appropriate lessons will be learned (apologies for the cliche). But I don't want to see anyone losing their job as a consequence of this episode.

 

[Carno]

This is pretty sad to watch. The author’s excuses on his bluesky account make this entire event even more pathetic; it’s pretty embarrassing that Ars’ “Senior AI Reporter” doesn’t even understand LLMs at all, much less their pitfalls.

But what makes this even more troubling is Ars’ lame attempts at damage control. Deleting the evidence and offering up a vague apology akin to the South Park BP “We’re sorry” bit is incredibly unprofessional for a supposed journalism site. Makes me think that Benj Edwards’ slop shoveling isn’t just a one off; the rot appears to extend much further.

 

[Carno]

This is one of my biggest gripes. I've seen it happen on several occasions and in real time and others I missed, (what was the context? It only leaves me with questions) and what bothers me is that the process hasn't improved over time. Instead, it's always seems to be the same - pull article, lock any comments, and give some context free or double down mea culpa. They really need to do better.

No kidding. Their lack of oversight in the first place and then the subsequent damage control measures masquerading as an apology (after deleting the evidence and locking the comments) is pretty bad.

 

[macosandlinux]

So the Ars staff writer that covers AI topics has been caught using AI tools to write text (quotes) for him? Not a great look, honestly, but waiting for a follow-up that will explain what happened - and if he is to blame to what extend - fabricating stories or messing up a tool that he - as an AI pro - did mess up.

The original article is here (again Ars should NOT delete content, just attach at top the editor's note - just like a newspaper would do - don't delete it):
https://web.archive.org/web/2026021...ent-published-a-hit-piece-on-someone-by-name/

 

[macosandlinux]

I'll leave it to everyone's own judgement what to make of the fact that reporting on AI uses AI to generate said reporting, and leaves it to an AI to fabricate quotes without at least the author doing the fact-checking on it...

Plus it was their AI topic reporter - that should be trustworthy on that same subject. I will avoid his reporting from now on, and/or wait for Ars to clarify this further.

 

[macosandlinux]

Two comments:

First, dropping your subscription because a single author violated Ars policy and wasn’t caught before publication seems excessive, particularly considering they acted aggressively over the weekend and even admitted precisely what was wrong.

Second, it gets tricky when possible employee discipline is involved. I think that has to be handled first, before additional public postmortem.

I don’t like it, but I’m also not aware of any publication acting more aggressively and publicly than Ars has (so far) in a similar case.

Newspapers don't delete articles and just stick an editor's note up instead. Ars has gained decades of trust as THE IT/tech information source.

 

[macosandlinux]

I am gravely concerned that this happened not on a syndicated article, not from some random freelancer, but on an article by two of the most recognizable authors on the site. This has deeply shaken my trust in Ars.

I'm willing to allow some time, but I do expect a full postmortem. I want to know:

• how this happened
• what is being done to ensure that it never happens again
• whether or not disciplinary action is being taken, and all details that are safe to share about it

I can get AI slop anywhere. Ars is supposed to be better than that.

Can this be pinned as top comment!

 

[Honeybog]

So the Ars staff writer that covers AI topics has been caught using AI tools to write text (quotes) for him? Not a great look, honestly, but waiting for a follow-up that will explain what happened - and if he is to blame to what extend - fabricating stories or messing up a tool that he - as an AI pro - did mess up.

The original article is here (again Ars should NOT delete content, just attach at top the editor's note - just like a newspaper would do - don't delete it):
https://web.archive.org/web/2026021...ent-published-a-hit-piece-on-someone-by-name/

Ironically, one of the invented quotes is:

“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.”

 

[macosandlinux]

Here's my suggestion: Don't use AI tools to write, don't use them to "assist", don't even use them to summarize. A complete moratorium on AI writing or inquiries. Yes, of course I'd say this... but that this happened using AI was, frankly, inevitable. It's the nature of the tool, and it WILL happen again, even if it's writing is "proofread". The work it takes to verity each claim AI makes is better spent just doing that initial research and writing it with a human... by a human. You can if you wish grasp a whole other person I suppose, HR department may object.

A "professional" writer (not a student using said tools to assist on an essay) that covers AI topics for Ars (THE IT/tech site of trust for decades) gets caught using AI to use fabricated quotes - in an article about AI making shit up - that's unreal.

 

[reyna785]

IMO, Ars needs to take a deep look at itself. BIG "if" here, because I don't know what the actual scenario is, but it's plausible that the below is similar to what might have happened:

If Benj felt so pressured to push out an article quickly, despite being sick, then the fault is not just on Benj for writing it, nor just the editors who didn't review it, but also on Ars' management/ownership. Only in the US (among supposed first-world countries) would such a scenario be even remotely normalized, and even then, it would plainly be the wrong way to do things. A culture where an employee doesn't feel they can call off when sick means that the employees are not secure, they're not safe, and they feel they have to choose their job over their health. It doesn't matter if you have FMLA days left or sick days accrued if you feel that you'll be punished in some way for using those "benefits," or that you have to work through sickness to "keep up" at work.

Now, there are many other things that could have happened. Hell, Benj could even be making up the illness after the fact. But there is something concerning in this entire chain of events that suggests something is deeply wrong.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

@Ken Fisher , I know that employee discipline processes take time, so I personally will be waiting two weeks to see the consequences of at least one of your writers lying to you, deceiving readers, and permanently damaging Ars' credibility. if everything is business as usual, with no public consequences, I will be cancelling my subscription on March 1st. I'm not going to pay for fabrications and lies

@Ken Fisher, ignore that noise above.

This was a serious error. A major cockup. But you acknowledged it. You’ve likely addressed it internally, reinforced your standards, and moved on. It's a serious matter - but it’s NOT a pattern. And without a pattern, termination is absolutely not justified.

Let me be clear: I take the completely opposite view. I will consider cancelling my subscription if you don’t stand by your staff in a situation like this. Teach them accountability. Show us transparency. Do NOT fire them!

I’m a leader myself, so I’ll say this plainly for everyone in this thread: a one-time mistake is not a firing offense for employees who otherwise perform well. Not even when its a very big mistake. If you enforce a zero-fault culture, you don’t get higher standards ... you get silence, blame-shifting, and people hiding mistakes instead of fixing them.

Accountability and transparency goes out the window.

When commenters calls for termination they are, frankly, disproportionate and short-sighted. Shame on you all! It’s easy to "demand consequences" when you don’t carry the responsibility of managing people. In reality, leadership means balancing quality of work with fairness - and recognizing that even competent people sometimes make mistakes. There is always a reason, and sometimes it's a DAMN GOOD ONE!

The right response isn’t to fire someone. It’s to be transparent, fix the issue, and learn from it. In fact, this could be a great opportunity. Explain what went wrong. Show how you corrected it. Let readers see the process. In short: write a whole article about it. Let the flawed human himself write it. Then publish it. That builds credibility far more than a stupid symbolic firing ever will.

If the person otherwise performs well, firing them is just damn wrong. The world needs MORE humans - flawed or otherwise - not LESS. And whoever is responsible for this is now incredibly wiser, stronger, more experienced. Don't throw them under the bus because the stupid court of public opinion calls for it. It's also the Trump-thing to do. So don't do that!

 

[ibad]

On a tangential note, I just want to say again, Timnit Gebru was right: stochastic parrots!

Hallucinations are still out of control, in spite of all the hype and, it should be said, lies being peddled about LLMs.

And these morons talk about AGI in 3 years. Pfft.

 

[Arganoid]

Baffled by commenters taking this as a cue to begin a subscription.

 

[tigas]

I work for an employer which is really pushing AI-based solutions to both its employees and its users.

At one of the information sessions, they (rightly) emphasized that anything the AI spat out had to be double-checked, and that the end product and responsibility belonged to the human being using the AI.

Someone at that session pointed out the many examples of professionals (lawyers, journalists, etc.) failing at that responsibility, and asked what guardrails they had in place to protect the employer from the results of employees not verifying what the AI spat out. Their response was to double down on it being the user's responsibility to double check anything, and otherwise avoided the question.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if a tech journalist whose beat is Artificial Intelligence can't internalize that message, and AI keeps getting pushed by everyone as the solution to everything, then we are utterly screwed as a society.

Cory Doctorow had been promoting what I think is a nice illustration for this.
A Centaur is when the powers of a human are supercharged by a machine pushing him forward.
AI is a "Reverse Centaur": the human is in the back this time just looking over the AI and is supposed to take it in the face when the AI shits itself

 

[Damdaman]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but...

You know, you take five minutes and then suddenly....

 

[Dr Nno]

It's not like Benj is shy of his AI usage as a tool to write better articles.


View: https://youtu.be/1nEph7-Viyc?t=255


In his interview with Ed Zitron, he is very candid, and he admits that GenAI is a good tool to help him fight against COVID Brain Fog. This is not a new excuse from him, the interview is from 4 months ago.

Benj Edwards said:
The difficulties I have with your criticism is that I use AI chat bots every day now to help me brainstorm and stuff, you know? It doesn't write my articles or anything 'cause it's... That's not what we do, it's not our policy, and it's not allowed, and it would suck, 'cause it's not a good writer, but... So I find use like AI models as sort of knowledge translators and framework translators, like, to... And, like, a sort of a memory augmentation that... Ever since I had... I had COVID, like, so many times, and I've had some brain fog issues. ChatGPT is great for, like... If I can't put my finger on what this thing is called and I can't remember it, I ask, like... You can describe it in a, like, a roundabout fuzzy way and get an answer pretty quickly, and then, you can verify it, but, you know, you would never search... [no audio] For... Or if you didn't... Could agree with you that AI... These AI models are not what they're billed to be, you know? They are not people, they are not replacements for labor, they are... Like, potentially at best, yeah, some kind of augmentation tool

 

[Cloudgazer]

On the one hand this is obviously completely unacceptable.

On the other hand I don't see how a journalist can report on AI without using AI, essetially they have to dogfood it, and the problem here was that due to a slip twixt cup and lip the dogfood ended up getting into our collective bowl as readers.

If this was a writer with a different beat I would be in full 'burn the witch' mode, because they shouldn't be using these tools at all, but this situation is much more messy.

On the other hand the response from Ars here is ugly.

• Memory holing the article entirely is messed up, they should preserve it even as they retract it.
• There should have been an indication that a full explanation of the hows and whys would be forthcoming.
• It should have identified the writer in question, even if that is harsh, even if he is sick - because otherwise we, the readers, are left having to do our own research. It isn't like it could have been kept secret, and what is not secret should be openly acknowledged.

I had a similar problem with how Ars handled the tale of the Egyptian physicist, where they removed the erroneous information entirely without preserving the record so to speak.

 

[pauleyc]

The author’s excuses on his bluesky account make this entire event even more pathetic

Out of curiosity, do you see a difference between an excuse and an explanation? Considering that Benji in his posts did accept his responsibility for the situation?

 

[MacBrave]

Integrity is what someone does when no one is watching. Somebody watched this time.
Once has to wonder how many other articles have been "written" on Ars since the rise of LLM's/AI but nobody really watched?
Ars Technica needs a real editor and proofreader.

 

[Honeybog]

It's not like Benj is shy of his AI usage as a tool to write better articles.


View: https://youtu.be/1nEph7-Viyc?t=255


In his interview with Ed Zitron, he is very candid, and he admits that GenAI is a good tool to help him fight against COVID Brain Fog. This is not a new excuse from him, the interview is from 4 months ago.

Reading that quote reminds me of the MIT brain scan study. Delegating your thinking to LLMs probably doesn’t help ameliorate lowered cognitive ability or decline. It’s basically the reverse of all of those studies that show that activities such as solving crossword puzzles prevent cognitive decline in older adults.

It’s pretty sad to think about, actually.

Ironically, I run a script that replaces every variation of “AI” with “heroin.”

 

[odikweos]

Don't usually post, but posting now to express appreciation for both author's work and observe that I can think of lots of scenarios consistent with posted statements that would not make this close to a firing offense.

I know that there is a real sense of betrayal, given that (for me at least) Ars is generally a bastion of standards and sanity, but if it is verified as an isolated occurrence about which everyone is honest within a short, but non-zero, amount of time, I can't see it as a nefarious plot, and I'm a bit surprised by the instantaneous vehemence here.

This is how everything gets enshittified.

When you have one job (get facts and tell them), you cannot fuck up that one job. Cannot. Or you lose trust. No amount of mealy-mouthed "isolated incident" talk can change that.

Do you think any of us have time to run around fact-checking the fact-checkers on whether or not it was really an isolated incident?

I've watched the quality of Ars reporting degrade significantly over the past two years, and I have to say a number of those stories centered around AI. Benj isn't the only one throwing softballs and generally doing a poor-looking job of digging in. How much smoke do you need to see before you decide there's probably a fire?

 

[pirix]

Being sick is awful, and definitely clouds one’s judgement. It’s not an excuse, it’s a reason. However, I think most would agree that there are things someone could do while sick that there would still need to be consequences for. If a doctor commits malpractice while ill, or a cabbie runs a red light and hits a pedestrian, there still need to be consequences despite mitigating circumstances.

I think this comes down to how seriously one views the infraction. I believe journalistic malpractice was committed here and despite a very understandable reason, there must be serious consequences.

 

[josephhansen]

Since the dead horse keeps twitching:
Deliberately breaking company policy and lying about it is not a "mistake". It is "gross misconduct".

Being sick and having brain fog is a unfortunate circumstance, not an excuse, for commiting gross misconduct. This is pretty basic HR stuff

 

[nsomniture]

Am I the only one getting a loop trying to manage my subscription? The link to manage your existing subscription (https://meincmagazine.com/store/account/subscriptions/) just redirects me back to the "subscribe to Ars Technica" page (https://meincmagazine.com/subscribe/).

 

[Magazan]

You can be the greatest guy in the world, but if you suck one c*ck you’ll always be known as a c*ck sucker.

In one article, ars destroyed itself.

You are not gay or bisexual then?

 

[SplatMan_DK]

On the one hand this is obviously completely unacceptable.

On the other hand I don't see how a journalist can report on AI without using AI, essetially they have to dogfood it, and the problem here was that due to a slip twixt cup and lip the dogfood ended up getting into our collective bowl as readers.

If this was a writer with a different beat I would be in full 'burn the witch' mode, because they shouldn't be using these tools at all, but this situation is much more messy.

On the other hand the response from Ars here is ugly.

• Memory holing the article entirely is messed up, they should preserve it even as they retract it.
• There should have been an indication that a full explanation of the hows and whys would be forthcoming.
• It should have identified the writer in question, even if that is harsh, even if he is sick - because otherwise we, the readers, are left having to do our own research. It isn't like it could have been kept secret, and what is not secret should be openly acknowledged.

I had a similar problem with how Ars handled the tale of the Egyptian physicist, where they removed the erroneous information entirely without preserving the record so to speak.

One of the problems is: if it remains up, how do you prevent world+dog from continuing to reference it, and AI's to keep reading it forever - conveniently skipping the "Redacted" part in the top?

I would have liked an "archived" version of the article, but in a very fast-paced world I absolutely understand and encourage the removal of the article. I honestly think robots and deep links would keep it alive "forever" if not removed from the main Ars article database.

If kept for honesty and historical purposes it should be moved to the forums, or stored as screenshots, or some other thing that removes it as an available "article".

 

[SplatMan_DK]

...the US is wild

PTO and being sick have nothing to do with each other in any civilized country.

 

[kaibelf]

It does seem there is a contingent here expressing disappointment the initial announcement did not include labeling him a domestic terrorist. That people want heads on spikes has long been a thing; it's also long been known that type of accountability isn't as effective as the pitchfork wavers think it to be.

That you, Jayson Blair?

 

[SplatMan_DK]

That's good to hear. But frankly, this is still the kind of "isolated incident" that should be considered an immediate firing offense. This was not a peccadillo, this was an utter abnegation of journalistic work, let alone standards and integrity.

If posting slop to the front page isn't a firing offense, I have to start questioning what the job is in the first place.

I will have to disagree with that. Even competent people make rare mistakes. It is human to err, and I want more humans at Ars; not less.

Zero-fault mindset does not foster a culture of transparency and honesty.

Help readers understand what happened with a follow-up. But don't throw an otherwise competent person under the bus because they made one (admittedly huge) cockup. Your eagerness for blood will not make the world - or journalism as a whole - a better place. In a world high on LLMs this could have happened to anyone.