We Asked the ‘Future of Truth’ Author to Explain How He Used AI. It Didn’t Go Well

2026-05-29 · Source: WIRED - Ai · Field: Technology & Digital — Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning, Emerging Technologies & Innovation · Depth: Fundamental Awareness, quick

Summary

Steve Rosenbaum's new book, "The Future of Truth," which examines how artificial intelligence distorts people's perception of reality, has come under scrutiny for its own factual accuracy. Following an excerpt published by WIRED, The New York Times reported that the book contained over half a dozen fabricated or misattributed quotes. Rosenbaum, who holds a master's degree in "truth" from New York University, subsequently acknowledged the accidental inclusion of "a handful" of "improperly attributed or synthetic" quotes, implying the use of AI in their generation. This incident creates a significant irony, as the veracity of a book focused on AI's impact on truth is now intensely questioned due to the author's own methods involving AI.

Key takeaway

For authors and researchers integrating AI into their content creation, this incident underscores the critical need for meticulous fact-checking and attribution. If you are using AI to generate or augment text, you must implement robust verification protocols for all claims and quotes. Failing to do so risks severe reputational damage and undermines the credibility of your work, especially when the subject matter itself touches on truth and technology.

Key insights

The irony of a book on AI and truth containing AI-generated falsehoods highlights critical authorial responsibility.

Principles

• Authorial integrity is paramount, even with AI tools.
• AI-generated content requires rigorous human verification.
• Misattribution erodes trust in published works.

In practice

• Verify all AI-generated content before publication.
• Clearly disclose AI tool usage in research.
• Double-check all attributed quotes.

Topics

• AI Ethics
• Content Verification
• Authorial Responsibility
• Misinformation
• Publishing Integrity
• Generative AI

Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Director of AI/ML, Tech Journalist, AI Ethicist, General Interest

Related on AIssential

• If using ChatGPT is cheating, what about ghostwriting? The old debate behind a new panic — Societal discomfort with ghostwriting and AI-generated text stems from a desire for authentic authorship.
• Concerns ‘AI slop’ used by University of Sydney-based institute to lobby for $20m gambling education funding — A research institute's funding request was undermined by an evidence review containing significant inaccuracies, potentially due to AI-generated content.
• AI will become normal in publishing, but trust will become scarce. The market will reward those who can prove provenance, quality, legality and human accountability. — AI adoption in publishing outpaces trust and governance, creating an "adoption paradox" with significant ethical and operational challenges.
• Fraud and the false optimism of AI for science — The ethical status of AI-generated scientific papers hinges on human oversight, intent, and the preservation of scientific integrity.
• Thoughts on Watermarking AI-Generated Content — Watermarking AI-generated content is technically feasible and robust enough for practical use, but requires broad adoption and regulatory coordination to address societal problems.
• The Guardian view on changes to copyright laws: authors should be protected over big tech | Editorial — Authors are demanding robust copyright legislation to protect their work and livelihoods from unlicensed AI use.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by WIRED - Ai.