He was supposed to be their "Senior AI Reporter." Him including basically anything from LLMs, without verifying it, in articles not only demonstrates a complete lack of credibility as a writer, but also a complete lack of understanding of AI. Even if they might have personally wanted to keep him on, you just can't after something like this.

What is the connection between these two statements? Are we supposed to presume that someone who apologizes on Bluesky should never be fired? Or did you also read the article and thought this was important information?

The raison d’etre for the journalist, in AD 2026, is less to gather information than to verify it. The journalist who cannot be trusted is no journalist at all. He is a blogger.

Why would apologizing for plagiarism and fabrication preclude you from facing sanctions for plagiarism and fabrication?

"Apologized on Blue Sky" is absolutely no reason to keep them. The author did the absolutely worst things a journalist can do (short of actual corruption) and is unfit for the job:

- He didn't care for his story,

- he didn't care to verify his story,

- he published bullshit made up stuff,

- and put words in a real person's mouth

- and he didn't even care to write the thing himself

Why keep him and pay him? What mentality all the above show? What respect, both self respect and respect for the job?

If they wanted stories from an LLM, they can pay for a subscription to one directly.

Hope this sends a message to journalist hacks who offload their writing or research to an LLM.

Can you name any other way for Ars Technica to handle this situation without permanently soiling their reputation?

That absolutely should be career-ending for a journalist, apology or no