[FatalLogic]

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

[nicbou]

> The violation of AI policy is regretted.

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

[dredmorbius]

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...>

[vintermann]

On the other hand, this way you know they probably didn't use the chatbot to write the apology.

[pixelpoet]

> This door is alarmed

[throwaway638637]

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.

[benterix]

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.

[steve_taylor]

It's a good example of when you should use AI.

[elwebmaster]

Of course, since we live in 1984 already everything is edited as is convenient. For all that technology has given, nobody talks about what it has taken away.