> That this happened at Ars is especially distressing. We have covered the risks of overreliance on AI tools for years, and our written policy reflects those concerns. In this case, fabricated quotations were published in a manner inconsistent with that policy. We have reviewed recent work and have not identified additional issues. At this time, this appears to be an isolated incident.
> Ars Technica does not permit the publication of AI-generated material unless it is clearly labeled and presented for demonstration purposes. That rule is not optional, and it was not followed here.
As I speculated elsethread, one of the authors did this without the knowledge of the other. That speculation could have been proven false, but it turned out to be correct.
I'm content that reserving judgement was the right call — as opposed to your maximalist call to end the careers of both authors even before all the facts were known.
Since it's so easy to get busted fabricating pull quotes from a published blog (as opposed to the more insidious fabrication of quotes from a private interview), I'm unsurprised that Kyle Ormand didn't go and vet the work of his co-author. Ending Ormond's career is in my view would not have been a proportionate penalty for his role in this affair.
Ars Technica's response is only so-so because although in combination with the Benj Edwards bluesky post it clarifies what happened, it doesn't detail any institutional reforms, such as adding additional layers of review.
https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/editors-note-retractio...
> That this happened at Ars is especially distressing. We have covered the risks of overreliance on AI tools for years, and our written policy reflects those concerns. In this case, fabricated quotations were published in a manner inconsistent with that policy. We have reviewed recent work and have not identified additional issues. At this time, this appears to be an isolated incident.
> Ars Technica does not permit the publication of AI-generated material unless it is clearly labeled and presented for demonstration purposes. That rule is not optional, and it was not followed here.
As I speculated elsethread, one of the authors did this without the knowledge of the other. That speculation could have been proven false, but it turned out to be correct.
I'm content that reserving judgement was the right call — as opposed to your maximalist call to end the careers of both authors even before all the facts were known.
Since it's so easy to get busted fabricating pull quotes from a published blog (as opposed to the more insidious fabrication of quotes from a private interview), I'm unsurprised that Kyle Ormand didn't go and vet the work of his co-author. Ending Ormond's career is in my view would not have been a proportionate penalty for his role in this affair.
Ars Technica's response is only so-so because although in combination with the Benj Edwards bluesky post it clarifies what happened, it doesn't detail any institutional reforms, such as adding additional layers of review.