We Asked the ‘Future of Truth’ Author to Explain How He Used AI. It Didn’t Go Well | WIREDSkip to main contentMenuSECURITYPOLITICSTHE BIG STORYBUSINESSSCIENCECULTUREREVIEWSMenuAccountAccountNewslettersSecurityPoliticsThe Big StoryBusinessScienceCultureReviewsChevronMoreExpandThe Big InterviewMagazineEventsWIRED InsiderWIRED ConsultingNewslettersPodcastsVideoLivestreamsMerchSearchSearchKate KnibbsBusinessMay 29, 2026 12:30 PMWe Asked the Future of Truth Author to Explain How He Used AI. It Didn’t Go WellA book about how AI shapes perceptions of reality came under fire for using AI-generated quotes. Its problems go beyond that.Photo-Illustration: Jobanny Cabrera; Getty ImagesCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyEarlier this month, WIRED published an excerpt from Steve Rosenbaum’s buzzy new book, The Future of Truth, which looks at how artificial intelligence warps people’s sense of reality. Shortly thereafter, The New York Times reported that the book contained over a half-dozen made-up or misattributed quotes. In a statement, Rosenbaum, who has a master's degree in "truth" from New York University, admitted that he had accidentally included “a handful” of “improperly attributed or synthetic” quotes. In an ironic twist, the veracity of a book about how AI impacts truth was now under intense scrutiny because of how its author had used AI.After the Times story broke, WIRED took another look at our 1,450-word excerpt. The fact-checking team had reviewed it prior to publication, and we reconfirmed that its quotes and facts were accurate. But WIRED’s generative AI editorial policy prohibits the publication of AI-generated and AI-edited writing, and a reader email calling out the excerpt as being “blatantly AI-written” raised further questions about the extent to which Rosenbaum had used AI tools. In The Future of Truth’s acknowledgement section, Rosenbaum writes that ChatGPT, Claude, NaturalReaders, ProWritingAid, and Grammarly had helped “refine and polish the presentation of [his] ideas.” What, exactly, did that mean?WIRED ran the excerpt through several AI-detection services, including Pangram, GPTZero, and ZeroGPT. Each service suggested that it was either likely AI-generated, or AI-generated with high confidence. But AI-detection tools are fallible, and can return inaccurate readings. So WIRED’s head of research emailed Rosenbaum directly to ask if and how he had used AI to write the excerpt.He wrote back: “Like many writers working today, I used AI tools during parts of the research and editorial development process for the book, including source discovery, brainstorming, structural feedback, and language refinement.” But, he stressed, “the ideas, reporting, arguments, and final authorship are mine, and the WIRED excerpt was not generated by AI and then simply published as-is.” He urged WIRED’s editors to exercise caution trusting AI detection tools, noting that false positives can occur.At this point, WIRED’s senior editors asked me to look into the episode, because I’ve covered AI slop in its various forms since 2024. My first step was to run the entire text of the book through Pangram’s detection tool. (While all AI-detection tools have limitations, and can show false-positives, Pangram is the current gold standard.) It came back that the book appeared to be 53 percent AI-generated, with an additional 9 percent registering as likely AI-assisted.I called Rosenbaum and asked for a more detailed description of how he’d used AI to write the book, and whether he disputed Pangram’s results. (BenBella Books, whose imprint published The Future of Truth, did not return requests for comment. Simon & Schuster, which distributes BenBella’s books in the United States, declined to comment.)Rosenbaum would not weigh in on the accuracy of Pangram’s results. In fact, he didn’t want to talk about them at all. “I don’t participate in that conversation,” he said. “It’s like saying, do you beat your wife? It’s one of those accusations that there’s no response to.”He offered, instead, to broadly explain his editorial process. He says that at the beginning of the writing process, he used AI tools as search engines, helping him surface information for the more research-heavy sections of the book. To demonstrate how he might do this, he asked ChatGPT to describe me, then read the results out loud. The AI search more or less accurately described some of my prior stories, including work on AI-generated “zombie media sites.”When I asked him to answer directly whether he had used AI to write or edit any of the passages in the book, he gave a winding answer. “No, that’s not how you write. The answer is, you take material—so, for example, the Kate response I just got, if I were to be writing about you, what would I do? Would I take it and paste it into Google Docs and then write around it and edit it up a little bit? Would I use the words ‘zombie media sites’ in quotes? Maybe. But I wouldn’t say, oh great, that’s answered my writing question for Kate, I’m going to stick that in my document and send it to my publisher.”“But would you copy and paste it, and then edit it?” I asked.“Probably,” he replied.“Did you do that in this book?”“I don’t remember. You’re looking for a smoking gun, and there isn’t one.”Rosenbaum said that writers who “wake up in the morning wanting to have ideas” are now “living in fear, and it’s not healthy for democracy.” Before I could ask what exactly that meant, he went on: “I talked to another author this morning who's literally got a book coming out going to the publisher in a month, and she's fucking terrified.”I asked if that was because she used AI in the process of writing the book.“Of course. You say this with an accusatory tone, like she used a cheating tool.” He mentioned a report that places AI adoption among journalists at 82 percent. He said that WIRED’s generative AI policy is restrictive and hypothesized that our writers likely use AI in secret.He doubled down on his personal commitment to AI, noting that he still uses it every day. “If the only way for me to not end up with a mistake ever again is to literally stop using AI, that's just not realistic. If the answer is to stop writing, that's not out of the realm of possibility.”I asked him whether he would rather stop writing than stop using AI in his writing process. “Yeah,” he answered.Rosenbaum vacillated between acknowledging that AI use could cause problems (“I do not understand why it's my job as an author to play whack-a-mole with a multibillion-dollar company who puts hallucinations into their feed as a business practice”) and repeatedly insisting that AI is indispensable, calling it the best writing partner he has ever had.He had simultaneously proved the thesis of his book—AI was, clearly, causing rifts over what is authentic and what is not—while undermining its credibility.When I told Rosenbaum that the way he used AI made me doubt the book’s accuracy and overall quality, he again brought up the study about journalists’ embrace of AI. “If 82 percent of journalists are using AI every day, then what you’re saying is you now have anxiety about the accuracy and reliability of essentially everything that is in the current media ecosystem,” he said.Well, yeah. I’ve been covering the rise of AI slop on the internet for years. It’s pervasive. Skepticism is rational. But the study Rosenbaum cited, from the public relations software firm MuckRack, counts AI transcription and looking stuff up with ChatGPT as AI usage, which is substantively different from secretly incorporating AI-generated sentences into a draft.When I asked MuckRack for a more detailed breakdown of how it found that journalists used AI, the company noted that only a quarter of the writers it polled had used artificial-intelligence tools for writing assistance. The majority of writers are not there. At least not yet.Lines are constantly being drawn, scribbled out, and redrawn over appropriate AI use. I use an AI tool for transcription; I’ve also used Claude to create Freedom of Information Act requests. Some writers who oppose AI would say those use cases are wrong. Rosenbaum is a serial media entrepreneur. He was prescient on how important digital video and user-generated content would be on the internet. It’s possible his way of operating could one day be the norm.Opinions around artificial intelligence in the media are already tilting toward increased acceptance. Earlier this year, WIRED spoke with tech reporters who openly embrace AI to write and edit stories. Independent journalist Alex Heath gives his reporting notes and other documents to an AI agent, which spins up his first draft. Some outlets are all in: Fortune, for example, is actively encouraging one of its reporters to cowrite stories with chatbots, and Business Insider permits its writers to use tools like ChatGPT on story drafts. A decade from now, newsrooms insisting that human writers do all the writing may look as quaint as getting a magazine delivered in print.For now, there’s still some resistance. This year, the publishing house Hachette canceled plans to release a novel in the United States after Pangram indicated that it was largely AI-generated, even after the author denied that they had used AI in their writing. The New York Times severed ties with a freelancer for using AI. And recently, a firestorm of criticism ensued after a literary magazine published short stories that critics believe appeared to be AI-generated.WIRED, too, had already been deep in the process of revising its editorial guidelines around AI. One aspect that will remain the same is that published work cannot be written with AI. Given the uncertainty around Rosenberg’s process, the excerpt was retracted as of Friday afternoon.CommentsBack to topTriangleYou Might Also LikeHow to find us: Add WIRED.com to your preferred sources in GoogleUsing AI for just 10 minutes could make you lazy and dumbBig Story: He couldn’t land a job interview—was AI to blame?Tesla says wheels may fall off CybertrucksLivestream: Submit your questions about how AI is transforming workKate Knibbs is a senior writer at WIRED. She covers prediction markets, the future of media, and how AI is changing the internet. She’s also interested in digital grey markets and regulatory battles over new tech. She is based in Chicago. Send tips to [email protected], or reach her on Signal ... Read MoreSenior WriterXTopicsartificial intelligenceBooksjournalismRead MoreLiterary Prizewinners Are Facing AI Allegations. It Feels Like the New NormalThree of five regional winners of the prestigious Commonwealth Short Story Prize are suspected of relying on chatbots. They’re certainly not alone.Miles KleeHe Couldn’t Land a Job Interview. Was AI to Blame?Armed with some Python and a white-hot sense of injustice, one medical student spent six months trying to figure out whether an algorithm trashed his job application.Todd FeathersI Am Begging AI Companies to Stop Naming Features After Human ProcessesAnthropic announced “dreaming” for AI agents to sort through “memories” at its developer conference. Can we not?Reece RogersA Note From WIRED LeadershipChatGPT Has ‘Goblin’ Mania in the US. In China It Will ‘Catch You Steadily’OpenAI’s chatbot has some weird linguistic tics in Chinese that are driving users crazy.Zeyi YangDemis Hassabis Thinks AI Job Cuts Are DumbThe CEO of Google DeepMind tells WIRED that companies should use the productivity gains of AI to do more, not lay people off.Will KnightEven If You Hate AI, You Will Use Google AI SearchThe search giant’s AI-crafted answers are so convenient, you’ll be sucked in—to the detriment of the web and the artists and thinkers behind it.Steven LevyNick Bostrom Has a Plan for Humanity’s ‘Big Retirement’The philosopher thinks humans should pursue advanced AI and the promise of a “solved world.”Steven LevyElon Musk Seemingly Admits xAI Has Used OpenAI’s Models to Train Its OwnWhile answering questions under oath, Musk argued it’s standard practice for AI labs to use their competitors’ models.Maxwell ZeffMeta Copies Snapchat’s Homework Again With ‘Plus’ Features for Instagram and FacebookMeta’s upcoming Instagram Plus and Facebook Plus subscriptions are the latest example of the company seeing what works elsewhere and mimicking it.Reece RogersOverworked AI Agents Turn Marxist, Researchers FindIn a recent experiment, mistreated AI agents started grumbling about inequality and calling for collective bargaining rights.Will KnightWhat Microsoft Executives Really Thought About OpenAI in 2018Leaders at the tech giant were skeptical of OpenAI—but wary of pushing it into the arms of Amazon, according to evidence revealed during the Musk v. Altman trial.Maxwell ZeffWIRED is obsessed with what comes next. Through rigorous investigations and game-changing reporting, we tell stories that don’t just reflect the moment—they help create it. When you look back in 10, 20, even 50 years, WIRED will be the publication that led the story of the present, mapped the people, products, and ideas defining it, and explained how those forces forged the future. WIRED: For Future Reference.More From WIREDSubscribeNewslettersLivestreamsTravelFAQWIRED StaffWIRED EducationEditorial StandardsArchiveRSSSite MapAccessibility HelpReviews and GuidesReviewsBuying GuidesStreaming GuidesWearablesCouponsGift GuidesAdvertiseContact UsManage AccountJobsPress CenterCondé Nast StoreUser AgreementPrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy Rights© 2026 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad ChoicesSelect international siteUnited StatesLargeChevronItaliaJapónCzech Republic & SlovakiaFacebookXPinterestYouTubeInstagramTiktok

A book titled The Future of Truth, which examines how artificial intelligence warps perceptions of reality, came under scrutiny following reports that it contained made-up or misattributed quotes generated by AI. The author, Steve Rosenbaum, acknowledged inadvertently including some improperly attributed or synthetic quotes. While WIRED's fact-checking team reconfirmed the accuracy of the excerpt prior to publication, the incident led to a broader examination of the extent of AI usage in the book. Rosenbaum admitted that he utilized various AI tools, including ChatGPT, Claude, NaturalReaders, ProWritingAid, and Grammarly, to refine and polish his ideas.

When WIRED subjected an excerpt from the book to AI detection services such as Pangram, GPTZero, and ZeroGPT, these tools suggested a high probability of AI generation. In response to this, WIRED sought clarification from Rosenbaum regarding his methodology. Rosenbaum explained that he employed AI tools during the research and editorial development phases, specifically for source discovery, brainstorming, structural feedback, and language refinement. However, he maintained that the core ideas, reporting, arguments, and final authorship remained his own, asserting that the excerpt was not simply published as raw AI output. He cautioned against over-reliance on AI detection tools, noting that false positives can occur.

When asked directly about the composition of the book, Rosenbaum indicated that he did not recall copying and pasting content into the book, suggesting that he did not document the exact process of integrating AI into the drafting. He framed his interaction with AI as using it as a search engine for surfacing information and for refining language, rather than the primary source of content creation. This revelation generated a complex dynamic regarding authorship and authenticity, particularly given the book's central thesis about truth.

Rosenbaum expressed a conflicted view on the role of AI, simultaneously viewing it as an indispensable writing partner while recognizing its potential flaws. He expressed concern about the repercussions of AI-generated content, noting that the rapid adoption of AI is causing anxiety among authors and speaking to the broader fear regarding the reliability of information in the current media ecosystem. He linked this sentiment to broader concerns about the pervasive presence of AI in media, citing a study that places AI usage among journalists at eighty-two percent, suggesting that authors and journalists are living in a climate where the reliability of information is increasingly questioned.

The text further contextualizes the ongoing tensions surrounding AI in media by referencing the resistance to its adoption in the publishing industry, exemplified by Hachette canceling plans for a novel after AI detection indicated heavy AI generation, and The New York Times severing ties with a freelancer for AI use. Despite this resistance, the trend toward accepting AI assistance in newsrooms is accelerating, with some outlets actively encouraging reporters to co-write with chatbots. Rosenbaum's position is situated within this evolving landscape, balancing the perceived benefits of AI as a tool against the philosophical and practical challenges it poses to the concept of authentic authorship and the integrity of public discourse.