There is no need to rush to judgment on the internet instant-gratification timescale. If consequences are coming for journalist or publication, they are inevitable.

We’ll know more in only a couple days — how about we wait that long before administering punishment?

▲

llbbdd 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not rushing to judgement, the judgement has been made. They published fraudulent quotes. Bubbling that liability up to Arse Technica is valuable for punishing them too but the journalist is ultimately responsible for what they publish too. There's no reason for any publication to ever hire them again when you can hire ChatGPT to lie for you.

EDIT: And there's no plausible deniability for this like there is for typos, or maligned sources. Nobody typed these quotes out and went "oops, that's not what Scott said". Benj Edwards or Kyle Orland pulled the lever on the bullshit slot machine and attacked someone's integrity with the result.

"In the past, though, the threat of anonymous drive-by character assassination at least required a human to be behind the attack. Now, the potential exists for AI-generated invective to infect your online footprint."

	▲	rectang 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		We do not yet know just how the story unfolded between the two people listed on the byline. Consider the possibility that one author fabricated the quotes without the knowledge of the other. The sin of inadequate paranoia about a deceptive colleague is not the same weight as the sin of deception. Now to be clear, that’s a hypothetical and who knows what the actual story is — but whatever it is, it will emerge in mere days. I can wait that long before throwing away two lives, even if you can’t. > Bubbling that liability up to Arse Technica is valuable for punishing them Evaluating whether Ars Technica establishes credible accountability mechanisms, such as hiring an Ombud, is at least as important as punishing individuals.