"I always have and always will abide by that rule to the best of my knowledge at the time a story is published."

Nothing suspicious about heavy use of qualifiers in a non-apology blanket denial. Where's the Polymarket for whether this guy has a job next month?

https://www.404media.co/ars-technica-pulls-article-with-ai-f...

▲

JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> whether this guy has a job next month?

That’s a problem. If he really hasn’t apologized, neither he nor Ars have recognized there is a problem, which means it will happen again.

▲

slg 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Is there something to the story that I'm missing? Why does Orland need to apologize? Edwards fabricated the quotes via AI and seemingly presented them to Orland as authentic. Orland had no reason to suspect the quotes weren't real until after publishing.

When journalists are working on a shared byline, they don't each do the same research in order to fact-check each other. There is inherently a level of trust required for collaborating like this and Edwards violated that trust.

You can say this is a failure by the editorial process for not including fact checking, but that is an organizational issue with Ars, it's not the fault of Orland for failing to duplicate the work that he believed his coauthor did.

	▲	Marsymars 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yeah, consider the same thing in other domains - e.g. say you're doing some code review and the PR author is a cowoker you've had for years, and they include a comment with a link to some canonical documentation along with a verbatim quote from said doc explaining usage of something in the PR. If the quote and usage both make sense in the context, I'm not going to be habitually clicking through to the docs to verify that the quote isn't actually fabricated.
	▲	JumpCrisscross an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Why does Orland need to apologize? Edwards fabricated the quotes He's on the byline and he's an editor. > they don't each do the same research in order to fact-check each other. There is inherently a level of trust If we're going to excuse this, what does the byline mean? He trusted the wrong person. It would be like if a source lied to him. Not the end of the world. But absolutely credibility destroying if instead of an apology you get a word salad. > You can say this is a failure by the editorial process Orland is also an editor. (Senior gaming editor [1].) [1] https://arstechnica.com/author/kyle-orland/