I wouldn't characterize the story as a hit piece; the misquotes didn't distort his position. What happened is the LLM accurately summarized his position, but they weren't actually his words in the quotes.

> How many "I deleted the prod database" stories have you seen? Humans do this too.

Humans do it accidentally.

It's going to be a sad day when AI starts messing with us deliberately.

> If you actually read the words used in Steam AI survey you'll know Steam has completely caved in for AI-gen code as well.

And if you actually read the article, you'd see it addressed that.

> Yeah, exactly. And LLM help developers save time from writing the same thing that has be done by other developers for a thousand times.

Like a library?

> It disappoints me that technologists are so skeptical of this technology rather than exploring what it is and why it might be different to what exists today. It's fun! thats the takeaway: it's FUN.

It's most likely fun for you because it's novel, and for a lot of skeptics, AI novelty has long worn off.

Things can be novel and useful at the same time.

The new shiny and new car smell will fade out, but some things stay after that. I'm about 90% sure Claws in some flavour will stay even after the hype slows down.

If a mobile phone company can figure out how to make this cost-efficient and be reasonably sure the assistant won't do anything that gets them in the news, their next device versions will have a similar branded system

I work in AI, I have used OpenClaw since it came out.

> Also - study the code of the likes of Carmack. Consider that he produced the likes of the quake engines in only a couple of years. Reflect long and hard on the raw simplicity of a lot of that code.

There's a tendency to ascribe the entirety of id's technology to Carmack. Michael Abrash, as one example, was a major factor.

You have a pattern of bringing up immigration in response to stories or comments that don't mention it.

Are you really reviewing 30-40k lines of code a day?

And that divide has been around for much longer than twenty years.

I take issue with this. Knowledge like connecting to a remote server via SSH or explaining what DNS is have ALWAYS been niche topics. The article claims these are things you learned in the first week of "seriously engaging" with a computer twenty years ago, and that's just false.

Respectfully, I find this to be an unwarranted positive reaction to have toward this situation. What other action could Ars possibly take as a journalistic business? The quotes are indisputably false. This is hardly a praise-worthy action to take. It's the expected and required action.

With regard to editorial review, an editor didn't catch the error. The target of the false quotes had to register on Ars and post a comment about it. To top it off, more than one Ars commenter was openly suspicious that he was a fake account. Only when some of the readers checked for themselves to see that the quotes were indeed falsified did it gain attention from Ars staff.

This was literally the best possible case for catching it - “quoted” person complaining, clearly visible page doesn’t have the quotes, and it still was a fight.

Most people would have had no hope and nobody would ever know.

We have a problem right now there is a lot of a bad 'news' sites and the few that do any good get slammed because they listen. Go ahead, slam Fox news and see how far that goes. I think this creates a very negative incentive to be responsible in journalism. If you try a little you will be hammered but if you don't try at all you get the pass. My point was, and still is, that we need to encourage the positive when we see it in hopes that it creates more positive in the future. It is just like raising a child. If you jump on them because they only did part of the right answer then next time they will do none of the right answer. The big point here is we need to be asking ourselves: What is the goal of the criticism? Are we achieving it? Is there a better way?