This needs to be shared on its own for visibility. It’s more difficult to trust Ars Technica after this. I DO respect them for publishing this but…

Frankly it’s getting increasingly difficult to trust any news source.

In the journalism world, fabricated quotes is an egregious offense.
https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/editors-note-retraction-of-article-containing-fabricated-quotations/

Editor’s Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

We are reinforcing our editorial standards following this incident.

Ars Technica

@killyourfm It’s shouting into the wind, I appreciate, but the simple rule should be that any *actual* journalist just shouldn’t use AI. At all. Ever. At least not for anything relating to an article.

I remember being at uni in 2000 and watching the journalism course student and dreading for the state of News once they were in charge. Now they are, and I was right to worry.

@wiredfire @killyourfm What is doubly-distressing about this particular incident is that it was done by a journalist/author who was known previously for being knowlegable, cautious and careful.

Someone I (previously) personally trusted, seemingly succumbed to a time-pressure-induced brain-fart.

@shelldozer @wiredfire @killyourfm this person has to go.
@f4grx @wiredfire @killyourfm I'm not sure I could be that hardline in this case, but I am feeling conflicted. Gaaaaargh.

@shelldozer @wiredfire @killyourfm if Ars had rules as clear as described in the retractation, then this is a simple fuck around / find out kind of situation. Since the consequence is the credibility of a well established publication, I think that person should take full responsibility.

I do not expect Ars to do that. I'm not even sure that person will be scolded.