-
A chain of national newspapers recently published a reading list partially generated by AI
-
That’s a problem — and not just because many of the books don’t actually exist
-
Here’s why we need real, human critics more than ever
It’s summer reading season and everyone wants in on the action — but one writer was recently caught cheating on their homework using AI after a summer reading list featuring fake books ran in major national newspapers.
The Chicago Sun-Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer were among those who published a syndicated summer book list that includes made-up books by famous authors, according to 404 Media and NPR News. Of the 15 books listed, only five are real. And if a living, breathing books editor like me — or anyone with a passing familiarity of the publishing industry — had so much as glanced at the list, they’d have caught it.
Percival Everett, who recently won the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for fiction (among multiple other prizes) for his latest, James, didn’t write a book calledThe Rainmakers. Isabelle Allende did recently put out a fabulous new book, but it’s called My Name is Emilia de Valle, not Tidewater Dreams. And Taylor Jenkins Reid’s hotly anticipated latest, Atmosphere, is about as far away from what AI calls The Collector’s Piece as you can get — considering it takes place partly in space.
The PEOPLE App is now available in the Apple App Store! Download it now for the most binge-worthy celeb content, exclusive video clips, astrology updates and more!
As PEOPLE’s senior books editor, this whole fiasco is a much-needed jolt of confidence in my job security. AI is good at a lot of things: many newsrooms (including ours) use helpful AI-enabled tools to help us identify what our readers are looking for and serve them that content better. But this is a great example of how badly things can go wrong when humans turn over the controls entirely.
To his credit, the journalist who used AI to write the story did fess up. Marco Buscaglia has claimed responsibility for it and says it was partly generated by AI. In an email to NPR, Buscaglia wrote, “Huge mistake on my part and has nothing to do with the Sun-Times. They trust that the content they purchase is accurate and I betrayed that trust. It’s on me 100 percent.”
Readers who were served the fake list, media and publishing industry folks alike are incensed, and rightfully so. It’s a stark and necessary reminder that there are some jobs AI just can’t — and shouldn’t — be left to do. And while I have no problem with using AI to brainstorm headline wording or work out a tricky transition much like I bounce ideas off a human colleague, it’s clear this writer took it a step too far. Working with AI as an assistant is one thing; expecting it to do our work for us is another.
The capabilities of generative AI are growing at leaps and bounds, and it’s getting “smarter” all the time. But the systems still need people to think critically and check its work — anyone who’s used an AI image generator has probably seen it glitch on details like fingers, hair and teeth. You wouldn’t pass off an AI painting as a Van Gogh, so why would you assume AI can write an article (or, god forbid, an entire book) just as well?
Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE’s free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer , from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
Beyond that, people still know what other people want better than any machine. That’s the unique specialty of subject-matter experts like myself and my colleagues here at PEOPLE and why I’m not worried we’ll be replaced by our robot overlords anytime soon. Recommending reading material, movies, TV shows and even food requires a level of nuance and understanding of your target audience that AI just doesn’t have yet — and we know what’s on the shelves.
Read the original article on People
