Comment by ilamont

> One other thing. If the author cut corners because he's too sick to write, but did so anyway because he thought his job would be in jeopardy if he didn't publish, maybe it's time for some self-reflection at Ars regarding the work culture and sick leave/time-off policies.

It sounds like you're implying that's what happened here, but I don't see any of that in the article. Was additional info shared elsewhere?

Edit: oh, I see links to the article author's social media saying this. Nevermind my question, and I agree.

Not sure how widespread an occurrence in the industry at large, but in two slowly dying publications I'm familiar with, the editors were the first to be let go.

Quality took a nosedive, which may or may not have quickened the death spiral.

All that to say, there may not even be senior editors around to put in the loop.

In mainstream journalism wasn't the practice to have a junior position research and confirm quotes, dates, proper names, etc?

I think this is entirely plausible lapse for someone with a bad fever, especially if they routinely work from home and are primarily communicating over text-based channels. Personally I'm much more inclined to blame the organization, as it sounds like they knowingly accepted work from someone who was potentially going to be in an altered mental state.

I can't help but think this is a reflection of the unwillingness of most people to actually pay for journalism online — and worse, the active and intentional effort to subvert copyright, making it more difficult for journlists to actually earn a living from their work.

People don't value journalism. They expect it to be free, generally. Therefore, companies like Ars are put into a position of expecting too much from their journalists.

HN is rife with people with this attitude -- frequently linking to "archive" sites for otherwise paywalled articles, complaining when companies try to build email lists, charge for their work, or have advertising on their sites. The underlying message, of course, is that journalism shouldn't be paid for.

Yes, Ars is at fault if they have a bad company culture. However, the broader culture is a real factor here as well.

> strictly controlled environment where the output can be carefully vetted

I don't know journalism from the inside, though of course it's one of those professions that everyone things they understand and has an opinion about. Realistically, is it especially careful vetting to verify the quotes and check the factual statements? The quotes seem like especially obvious risks - no matter how sick, who would let an LLM write anything without verifying quotes?

That seems like not verifying currency figures in an estimate or quote, and especially in one written by an LLM - I just can't imagine it. I'd be better off estimating the figures myself or removing them.

Possibly the author doesn't understand LLMs well.