It's a reckless disregard for the readers and the subjects of the article. Still not malice though, which is about intent to harm.

▲

andrewflnr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Lying is intent to deceive. Deception is harm. This is not complicated.

▲

maxbond 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you're reading a lot of intentionality into the situation what may be present, but I have not seen information confirming or really even suggesting that it is. Did someone challenge them, "was AI used in the creation of this article?" and they denied it? I see no evidence of that.

Seems like ordinary, everyday corner cutting to me. I don't think that rises to the level of malice. Maybe if we go through their past articles and establish it as a pattern of behavior.

That's not a defence to be clear. Journalists should be held to a higher standard than that. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with "senior" in their title was fired for something like this. But I think this malice framing is unhelpful to understanding what happened.

▲

andrewflnr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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.

By submitting this work they warranted that it was their own. Requiring an explicit false statement to qualify as a lie excludes many of the most harmful cases of deception.

	▲	maxbond an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Have you ever gone through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop? Was that dishonesty? You can absolutely lie through omission, I just don't see evidence that that is a better hypothesis than corner cutting in this particular case. I am open to more evidence coming out. I wouldn't be shocked to hear in a few days that there was other bad behavior from this author. I just don't see those facts in evidence, at this moment. And I think calling it malice departs from the facts in evidence. Presumably keeping to the facts in evidence is important to us all, right? That's why we all acknowledge this as a significant problem?