Pakistani newspaper mistakenly prints AI prompt with the article

What actually happened in the article

• The print edition included not the AI prompt but a chunk of trailing chatbot boilerplate (“if you want, I can also create…”).
• Online, the newspaper added a correction noting the article was edited with AI in violation of its policy and that “junk” had been removed.
• Some readers note this is Pakistan’s major English-language paper, making the incident more serious than a small local slip.

Language, tone, and responsibility

• Several comments focus on the apology’s passive voice (“violation of AI policy is regretted”) as a way to obscure responsibility.
• Others counter that such phrasing is a long‑standing bureaucratic and journalistic convention (“X regrets the error”), not uniquely AI-related.
• There’s broader criticism of institutional language that minimizes accountability (“mistakes were made”).

Annoyance with chatbot “engagement bait”

• The printed fluff is recognized as standard LLM behavior: ending with offers of follow‑ups and snappier versions.
• Many find this “engagement bait” intrusive and harmful to quality, as it derails subsequent context and user replies.
• Suggested mitigations: instructing models not to ask follow‑ups, one‑shot prompts, UI buttons for follow‑up actions, or editing the context manually.

Automated and templated journalism

• Several note that financial and sports pages have been semi‑automated or templated for decades; this is seen as the latest iteration.
• Some argue structured, stats-heavy content is well‑suited to automation; others worry LLMs will quietly invent numbers in exactly such dry contexts.
• Ethical automated systems (like quake-report bots) are cited as examples where automation plus human oversight works.

Trust, editing, and newsroom practices

• A recurring concern is that nobody proofread the piece before printing, suggesting understaffed or overworked editorial desks.
• Some see this as evidence that AI is already widely and quietly used; the correction is viewed either as honest transparency or as damage control.
• Broader worry: AI “slop” in reputable outlets accelerates the erosion of trust in journalism and encourages readers to disengage or rely on LLMs directly.

AI as writing aid, and its risks

• Non‑native speakers report strong practical benefits from AI for grammar and style, replacing human reviewers.
• Others warn that authors may not notice when AI subtly changes meaning, especially in technical or news contexts.
• There are calls to label AI-generated or AI-edited content so readers can calibrate their trust appropriately.