This is a good way to handle the situation and an understandable and believable scenario, so I’m perfectly willing to forgive this. I’m a little less okay with an apparent “work in spite of illness” policy, however.

But still, it’s a serious blunder, and it needs to be said that any repeat of this at all would be very damning. I can’t forgive this level of fuckup twice. Any AI use is a risk, folks; treat it like one.

This sounds eerily familiar…

I don’t know if Hearst told him to use a chatbot to generate their “Best of Summer Lists,” but it doesn’t matter. When you give a freelancer an assignment to turn around ten summer lists on a short timescale, everyone understands that his job isn’t to write those lists, it’s to supervise a chatbot.

But his job wasn’t even to supervise the chatbot adequately (single-handedly fact-checking 10 lists of 15 items is a long, labor-intensive pro­cess). Rather, it was to take the blame for the factual inaccuracies in those lists. He was, in the phrasing of Dan Davies, “an accountability sink” (or as Madeleine Clare Elish puts it, a “moral crumple zone”).

https://locusmag.com/feature/commentary-cory-doctorow-reverse-centaurs/

Thanks for sharing, I was wondering if he would say anything about it. They seem to be handling it well.