FYI, the article was presumably taken down because many of the quotes turned out to have been fabricated, and they said they were investigating this. (I don't think that they are trying to cover up anything, just that they have not gotten around to written an official response yet, given that this is a recent development.)
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
70 points (92.7% liked)
Programming
25522 readers
396 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ugh, that is utterly disappointing to see from Ars Technica. Here's a bit of context about it: https://mastodon.social/@nikclayton/116065459933532659
Fortunately, the article was already archived, for what it's worth: https://web.archive.org/web/20260213194851/https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/after-a-routine-code-rejection-an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-someone-by-name/
You should edit your original post to use the archive link, as the main link now leads to a 404 error..
Why link to falsehoods without context?
I didn't write the article, neither did OP.
If the article is false, well so be it, but at least the supposedly false article was archived.
Sometimes, even if an article proves to be false, readers in the future might still be curious what all the article said or claimed.
🤷
I think it's best to leave the post link as is. I don't want to point people to misinformation. I've added a post description instead with context and the archive link. If people downvote this post because of the 404, so be it.
That's actually the even more proper way to handle it, thanks for the update 👍
Of course they were fabricated, by an AI.
More seriously, which quotes were you referring to?
Sounds like the quotes from the person that wrote the blog
Yep, I saw in some other threads, Ars used AI which misquoted the original blog. "Hey, look at this weird unreliability caused by AI" says article riddled with AI unreliabilities.
Blog post about this event by the someone in question: https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-me/
“AI agents can research individuals, generate personalized narratives, and publish them online at scale,” Shambaugh wrote. “Even if the content is inaccurate or exaggerated, it can become part of a persistent public record.”
– Ars Technica, misquoting me in “After a routine code rejection, an AI agent published a hit piece on someone by name“
The link to the article leads to a 404.
OP posted a working archive link in the comments..
You shouldn't be posting that without the context in that comment:
FYI, the article was presumably taken down because many of the quotes turned out to have been fabricated, and they said they were investigating this. (I don’t think that they are trying to cover up anything, just that they have not gotten around to written an official response yet, given that this is a recent development.)
Ugh, that is utterly disappointing to see from Ars Technica. Here’s a bit of context about it: https://mastodon.social/@nikclayton/116065459933532659
Fortunately, the article was already archived, for what it’s worth: https://web.archive.org/web/20260213194851/https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/after-a-routine-code-rejection-an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-someone-by-name/
@quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
huh. That comment didn't federate properly then.