Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Pakistani newspaper mistakenly prints AI prompt with the article

    (twitter.com)
    443 points wg0 | 15 comments | 12 Nov 25 11:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.633s | source | bottom
    Show context
    FatalLogic ◴[12 Nov 25 11:32 UTC] No.45898892[source]▶
    The online edition was edited later.

    "This newspaper report was originally edited using AI, which is in violation of Dawn’s current AI policy. The policy is also available on our website. The report also carried some junk, which has now been edited out. The matter is being investigated. The violation of AI policy is regretted. — Editor"

    https://www.dawn.com/news/1954574

    edit: Text link of the printed edition. Might not be perfect OCR, but I don't think they changed anything except to delete the AI comment at the end! https://pastebin.com/NYarkbwm

    replies(2): >>45899052 #>>45899372 #
    1. nicbou ◴[12 Nov 25 11:55 UTC] No.45899052[source]▶
    > The violation of AI policy is regretted.

    That's a good example of when you shouldn't use passive voice.

    replies(6): >>45899199 #>>45899444 #>>45899604 #>>45900002 #>>45900587 #>>45900591 #
    2. benterix ◴[12 Nov 25 12:11 UTC] No.45899199[source]▶
    OTOH kudos to them for regretting AI slop (even if they don't want to point out who precisely is regretting). I know some who'd vehemently deny in spite of evidence.
    replies(1): >>45899523 #
    3. steve_taylor ◴[12 Nov 25 12:41 UTC] No.45899444[source]▶
    It's a good example of when you should use AI.
    4. serial_dev ◴[12 Nov 25 12:51 UTC] No.45899523[source]▶
    They don't regret serving you AI slop, they regret that the "writer" didn't even read their own article and that they got caught because of it.
    replies(1): >>45900998 #
    5. throwaway638637 ◴[12 Nov 25 12:59 UTC] No.45899604[source]▶
    That's just a manner of speaking in former British colonies, or at least the subcontinent. Much of formal speech like a bureaucrat wrote it because, well, the civil service ran India and that's who everyone emulated.
    replies(2): >>45900239 #>>45900252 #
    6. pixelpoet ◴[12 Nov 25 13:38 UTC] No.45900002[source]▶
    > This door is alarmed
    7. thoroughburro ◴[12 Nov 25 13:58 UTC] No.45900239[source]▶
    > That's just a manner of speaking in former British colonies, or at least the subcontinent.

    Which is still a good example of when you shouldn't use passive voice.

    Clarifying where “optimising language to evade a responsibility” evolved does nothing to justify it, which you imply with “that’s just”.

    8. hbarka ◴[12 Nov 25 13:59 UTC] No.45900252[source]▶
    It’s still passive voice, the kind used when trying to avoid blame or responsibility. So pretty much fits in bureaucratic places.

    That’s just…mistakes were made.

    replies(2): >>45900597 #>>45902961 #
    9. vintermann ◴[12 Nov 25 14:25 UTC] No.45900587[source]▶
    On the other hand, this way you know they probably didn't use the chatbot to write the apology.
    10. dredmorbius ◴[12 Nov 25 14:25 UTC] No.45900591[source]▶
    This is a convention for journalistic corrections, e.g., "The Times regrets the error", used to note corrections for at least a century:

    <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/insider/the-times-regrets...>

    replies(1): >>45900732 #
    11. ◴[12 Nov 25 14:25 UTC] No.45900597{3}[source]▶
    12. strix_varius ◴[12 Nov 25 14:36 UTC] No.45900732[source]▶
    Your example is not passive voice.
    replies(1): >>45900986 #
    13. IAmBroom ◴[12 Nov 25 14:55 UTC] No.45900986{3}[source]▶
    Yes, they are pointing out how it should have been written.
    14. IAmBroom ◴[12 Nov 25 14:56 UTC] No.45900998{3}[source]▶
    "We regrets that mistakes were noticed."
    15. throwup238 ◴[12 Nov 25 17:29 UTC] No.45902961{3}[source]▶
    This pattern of writing goes back to the Spanish conquistadors at the very least. They frequently described their actions in a passive voice when doing something they knew was horrible, only to switch to aggrandizing active voice when writing about their successes. It’s a standard way to blur responsibility and present violence as an almost natural “fact” rather than a deliberate action by identifiable agents.

    It didn’t escape everyone’s attention though. Bartolomé de las Casas definitely noticed it.