It was, sadly, inevitable that some AI \u201challucinated\u201d prose was going to show up in a major nonfiction book from a Big 5 publisher, but the irony of that book being titled \u201cThe Future of Truth: How AI Reshapes Reality\u201d is simply off the charts.<\/p>\n
A week or so after publication, a New York Times investigation<\/a> revealed that \u201cThe Future of Truth\u201d contained \u201cnumerous made-up or misattributed quotes concocted by AI.\u201d Steven Rosenbaum, the book\u2019s author, acknowledged the errors, saying that he had previously disclosed his use of ChatGPT and Claude (leading generative AI models) during the \u201cresearch, writing, and editing process,\u201d and that for the errors he takes \u201cfull responsibility.\u201d<\/p>\n One should hope so, though as I\u2019ll get to in a bit, I think there may be some things we readers can do to arrest the potential for a slide down the slippery slope into a world of AI slop.<\/p>\n Published by the Matt Holt imprint under the Simon & Schuster banner, the book had garnered glowing pre-publication reviews and ecstatic blurbs from bestselling author Daniel Pink and The Atlantic CEO Nicholas Thompson, among equally august others.<\/p>\n Rosenbaum is the executive director of the nonprofit Sustainable Media Center and the author of a previous book, \u201cCuration Nation: How to Win in a World Where Consumers Are Creators.\u201d In addition to his acceptance of responsibility, Rosenbaum told the Times he\u2019s starting his \u201cown investigation,\u201d which had me thinking of none other than O.J. Simpson.<\/p>\n Given that I\u2019ve written my own book on writing and AI, and deliver talks and workshops in schools and universities on the subject, I could play armchair quarterback on how something like this could happen when interacting with the technology, but I\u2019d rather get to the root of the problem.<\/p>\n And the root of the problem is a lack of respect.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a lack of respect for the people that Rosenbaum misquoted or misattributed. It\u2019s a lack of respect for readers who expect the nonfiction books they pick up to be as accurate as possible. For sure, humans are fallible, we make mistakes, but this is a case where Rosenbaum relied on a technology that invents wrong stuff as part of its inherent architecture and then published it without sufficient checking.<\/p>\n To me, this is ultimately also a lack of self-respect, of not having sufficient pride in your own work to do this very basic, very necessary thing.<\/p>\n So, what should be done about this? Maybe I\u2019m a bit of a maximalist, but I believe the book should be recalled, pulped and not republished. The Times found a significant handful of botched quotes, but for me, this whole thing is tainted at this point. I\u2019d also never trust a book by this author (or frankly, this imprint) again, unless and until I knew there were assurances that a human intelligence was responsible for every utterance in the book.<\/p>\n I know there\u2019s a lot of enthusiasm for generative AI technology as a kind of co-intelligence that can make us smarter, but I can testify that this is simply not the case when it comes to writing, because this technology does not write.<\/p>\n It is an automated text generator.<\/p>\n Writing is about thinking, and feeling, and experiencing, and then filtering those things through a unique human intelligence for the benefit and enjoyment of other unique human intelligences. I can imagine many commercial uses for automated text generation, but using them to produce books purportedly written by humans isn\u2019t one of them.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t need to shrug and accept AI books as inevitable. Insist on being human.<\/p>\n Book recommendations from the Biblioracle<\/p>\n John Warner tells you what to read based on the last five books you\u2019ve read.<\/p>\n 1. \u201cYesteryear\u201d by Caro Claire Burke \u2014 Barbara D., Chicago<\/p>\n For Barbara, a book set in World War II that has a truly unique method for exploring the story: \u201cLife After Life\u201d by Kate Atkinson.<\/p>\n 1. \u201cYesteryear\u201d by Caro Claire Burke \u2014 Diana T., Deerfield<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a book that\u2019s been a reliable recommendation for like 20 years: \u201cThe Eyre Affair\u201d by Jasper Fforde.<\/p>\n 1. \u201cThe Goldfinch\u201d by Donna Tartt \u2014 Eden F., Chicago<\/p>\n Another reliable recommendation for most readers, particularly big stories with close character work: \u201cBeautiful Ruins\u201d by Jess Walter.<\/p>\n Get a reading from the Biblioracle<\/p>\n Send a list of the last five books you\u2019ve read and your hometown to\u00a0biblioracle@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n
2. \u201cReading Lolita in Tehran\u201d by Azar Nafisi
3. \u201cA World Appears\u201d by Michael Pollan
4. \u201cStill Life\u201d by Sarah Winman
5. \u201cThe Unbearable Lightness of Being\u201d by Milan Kundera<\/p>\n
2. \u201cThe Shadow of the Wind\u201d by Carlos Ruiz Zaf\u00f3n
3. \u201cPiranesi\u201d by Susanna Clarke
4. \u201cProject Hail Mary\u201d by Andy Weir
5. \u201cVigil\u201d by George Saunders<\/p>\n
2. \u201cMatrix\u201d by Lauren Groff
3. \u201cLittle Fires Everywhere\u201d by Celeste Ng
4. \u201cThe Lincoln Highway\u201d by Amor Towles
5. \u201cMy Friends\u201d by Fredrik Backman<\/p>\n