Post

bsky.app/profile/jooc...

Thank you for the clarification.

"The reporter should have checked the accuracy of what the A.I. tool returned" ya think?

Is it not a dismissal offense?

Real media critic - Margaret Sullivan? Agree 100% with everything you say.

this is why I've followed @froomkin.bsky.social for ages

To be fair, the New York Times has been committed to eroding public trust of the press for some time now. bsky.app/profile/bubb...

This is a Jayson Bair level offense.

Not to dismiss the reporters laziness; but I was under the impression that the times fact checked their reporters work before publishing. Historically they prided themselves on their rigorous fact checking, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

NYTimes has 2,000 newsroom employees, more than any other medium on the planet. Its policy on “how we use AI” should be “we don’t.”

This should be a zero-tolerance offense, to not even verify the quote implies a lack of journalistic integrity that can’t be wrist-slapped away

Thank you for this rant. Enemies of courageous, diligent journalism will surely jump on any incident of lazy, irresponsible AI use to try to discredit the noble profession.

👹👹👹👹FU NYT!

I'm reading the policy as they don't have an end to end automated article generation process; and whoever's byline's neck is on the line, regardless of how their copy is produced. I suspect it's phrased the way it is to give the (false) impression no reporters dare use AI, because ppl don't like AI

they are splitting hairs here I think they may not use it to write THE article but just parts of it? ;)

Disappointing - I enjoy her reporting.

No they shouldn’t have checked the accuracy of the LLM output they should have not used an LLM.

Live by the content mill, die by the content mill.

Straight from the playbook of Jim "nuke'm" Sheridan

Well that was $5 well spent/donated this month.

Ah. Wisdom.

why i give real money to wikipedia every year.

That's not what it says though. If you have a history of AI *editing*, if certain conditions are met, people can revert your edits *from the point they deem as when you started doing AI editing*, and you can revert and take responsibility for the content (far from "nuking from orbit").

Of course there's tremendous opposition. The lazy and incompetent are always noisy about being forced out to make room for the diligent and competent. It doesn't change the fact that all platforms will improve by pushing them out.

I do a monthly $5 contribution - I barely notice it's gone, but it adds up.

Set it to be monthly, they need our support

This is why wikipedia rocks. OK, ANOTHER reason why wikipedia rocks.

Wikipedia 🤝 Games Workshop Abominable Intelligence is tech-heresy www.ign.com/articles/war...

This is 100% the time and the place to go very overboard on this. This ain't a flyer for your kid's 7th birthday party, this is defending one of the remaining places online where truth still exists.

Oh well, no harm done.

That should be a firing offense. Zero excuse. Zero.

All of the people responsible should be sacked and the details should be on the front page, not some italicized notes at the bottom of the article.

It’s fucking wild people use AIs for quotes. Holy shit, you don’t have to know how an LLM works to understand it can invent things and therefore shouldn’t be used as an authoritative source. I mean, this isn’t a 9th grade social studies paper, it’s the goddamn New York Times.

Every journalist caught doing this should be fired. Every lawyer putting hallucinated legal precedents in court filings should be disbarred. MAYBE give people a single second chance if they publicly accept responsibility and grovel.

AI's like that annoying, lazy colleague who wings it, lies out of their arse and hopes for the best.

I assume that reporter is now looking for a new job (hopefully in vain).

In fairness, actually reading through Poilievre quotes is a designated torture in the 5th circle of hell. There aren't many things I would rather do less than read that man's speeches.

Lazy af. Unfortunately the availability of access to short cuts is murdering work ethics.

I think it is instructive to compare with Ars Technica, where a similar thing happened this year, AI made up quotes, published, but very quickly withdrawn. And serious consequences for the writer who was much less privileged than in this case. arstechnica.com/staff/2026/0...

wtf?!?

Whoa

This demon spawn is in its infancy. You can have an LLM cite the source and physically validate it fairly easily. This is lazy copy editing. In a few years when the internet is overwhelmingly infected by AI plagiarism, the attestation of source material will become advanced forensics.

if the NYT were still a real newspaper, he'd have already lost his job.

They should be fired. Any AI content in a professional journal is plagiarism and they should be fired for it @radiofreetom.bsky.social

A journalist should be using primary sources. She could‘ve easily obtained a copy of the speech from his website or office.

@timbousquet.bsky.social

!!

Lots of people don't understand, for example, that Google search is broken, and that when you search now the "AI Summary", generated by a cheap and lousy version of Gemini, is often wrong.

Ya; never go to #Toronto. #sorry about that

Truly falling I guess.

More proof of how corrupted the New York Times is.

Now I want to know what AI made up.

Why? Canada forgives this faux pas.

NYT is worthless, and this proves it

They're calling it C-Day

I still contend laziness is more than half the reason these m'fers go fascist. "I don't have to work anymore?Where do I sign up?"

I wonder if this is related… www.nytco.com/careers/job-...

“I fucking love goblins and raccoons. And ghouls, little green ghouls.” — Pierre Poilievere

No, no, a thousand times no. As a journalist, the least you can do is pull your own damn quotes.

Is this the same moron who fabricated that "Canadians were calling it C Day" about weed legalization?

A few minutes from here so all's well

Thanks.

The elite of this country are so fucking lazy and stupid.

nice ai that you use

Exactly. But before the top result might have linked you to a definitive source you could trust!

Entirely possible. Google’s AI summaries are hallucination central. The number of times I’ve visited the cited articles to verify a summary, only to find that Google’s conclusion was plucked out of thin air.

I do remember him saying floor-crossers should resign and trigger a new election... Which is pretty hypocritical, since P.P. celebrated the bravery it took for every single floor-crosser to abandon their party and join the Cons since Harper's majority.

Not journalism

That’s me unsubscribing from The Canada Letter then.

I hope the reporter is fired. But I’m sure that’s hoping for too much.

More evidence propping up these dead-on-their-feet legacy platforms is a long-term loser. “We’re gonna make cable TV great again” energy

I cannot get over this

they're on Trump's team now, not the times of old.

A hallmark of today's college paper

Yup. Give people of the midwest cancer and devalue their generational homes. Yipee. As long as you can't see them, it's OK to kill them? www.cnbc.com/2025/10/29/a...

If you aren't talented or intelligent enough to write on your own, you aren't talented or intelligent enough to write

maybe try this garbage in the comments of a post that isn't about LLMs shitting the bed once again, yeah?

lazy. that should be forever disqualifying

A former journalist I know socially was *fired* several years ago from a top-tier political coverage job with a major news organization, because his documentation of man-on-street quotes was inadequate. I mean, this is far, far worse. Another day, it seems, another set of standards.

I asked AI the opinion of both sides.

The @nytimes.com is an excellent word game site and one should measure their expectations when depending on the accuracy of their news reporting.

yes. www.nytimes.com/2026/04/14/w...

Editor and writer should be unemployed.

On-brand for the shuffling corpse in NYT’s old skin.

How far the Times has fallen. I remember just a few years ago during our freedom convoy issues. They had 2 actual "journalists" spreading unchecked misinformation they got from twitter loons. 🤥Now they've got AI for their fake news. For shame. 🙄

There is nothing worth paying for in that news room. Just a bunch of mid people using the NY Times name to trick consumers into paying for their stuff.

She's an AI tool 🙄

I am someone that uses AI a lot and I think that should be an instant firing offense.

That's a long mea culpa.

Sorry but this person should be fired for publishing made up quotes. Just as surely as if she had made them up herself. Which she basically did. How can anyone trust what she says in the future if she made shit up?

Also seems to be forgetting about the additional eyes that (hopefully) went over it before it went live. You can't prove/disprove a given passage is AI-generated, but good lord you can see if a quote is right.

Did she lose her job? Of course not!

Seems like this reporter should be fired. NOT using AI is easy

That's either a career ender, or, certainly, a reputational oblivion.

As tedious as it is to listen to Pollievre I am sure there are many people willing to actually listen to his speeches and report on them if it means making 6 figures. Why does this reporter deserve this job?

Meanwhile up here in Canada, Canadian journalists like @akurjata.ca are winning awards "just" for reporting on small town news. No AI needed.

I give only the mildest credit to @nytimes.com for correcting this and implore its editorial staff to either take coverage of Canada seriously or just don't bother. #cdnpoli bsky.app/profile/bryc...

😡

Sorry, it's been years since the NYT and news institution belonged in the same sentence.

😔

Reason #37 to not consider the NYT journalism.

Thank you for reporting on this. It's wildly out of tune with their stated policies. But also, why are so many seemingly at pains to not mention the reporter? This is surely on them – though it trickles upwards to the paper's editorial vigilance and AI policy consistency.