We Asked the ‘Future of Truth’ Author to Explain How He Used AI. It Didn’t Go Well
We Asked the ‘Future of Truth’ Author to Explain How He Used AI. It Didn’t Go Well
我们询问了《真相的未来》作者他是如何使用人工智能的，结果并不理想
Earlier 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. 本月初，《连线》（WIRED）杂志刊登了史蒂夫·罗森鲍姆（Steve Rosenbaum）备受关注的新书《真相的未来》（The Future of Truth）的节选，该书探讨了人工智能如何扭曲人们对现实的认知。此后不久，《纽约时报》报道称，该书包含了六处以上虚构或归属错误的引语。罗森鲍姆拥有纽约大学的“真相”硕士学位，他在一份声明中承认，他确实“不小心”包含了一小部分“归属不当或合成的”引语。讽刺的是，一本关于人工智能如何影响真相的书，其真实性如今却因作者使用人工智能的方式而受到了严厉审查。
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? 在《纽约时报》的报道发布后，《连线》重新审视了我们刊登的那篇 1450 字的节选。事实核查团队在发表前曾对其进行过审核，我们再次确认其中的引语和事实是准确的。但《连线》的生成式人工智能编辑政策禁止发表由人工智能生成或编辑的内容，且一封读者来信指出该节选“明显是人工智能写的”，这引发了关于罗森鲍姆使用人工智能工具程度的进一步质疑。在《真相的未来》的致谢部分，罗森鲍姆写道，ChatGPT、Claude、NaturalReaders、ProWritingAid 和 Grammarly 曾帮助他“润色和完善了其观点的表达”。这到底意味着什么？
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. 《连线》通过包括 Pangram、GPTZero 和 ZeroGPT 在内的多个 AI 检测服务对该节选进行了检测。每项服务都显示，该文本要么很可能是由人工智能生成的，要么以高置信度判定为人工智能生成。但 AI 检测工具并非万无一失，可能会得出不准确的结果。因此，《连线》的研究主管直接给罗森鲍姆发了邮件，询问他是否以及如何使用人工智能来撰写该节选。
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. 他回信道：“像当今许多作家一样，我在本书的研究和编辑开发过程中使用了人工智能工具，包括资料搜集、头脑风暴、结构反馈和语言润色。”但他强调：“书中的观点、报道、论证和最终署名权都是我的，《连线》刊登的节选并非由人工智能生成后直接发布。”他敦促《连线》的编辑们在信任 AI 检测工具时要保持谨慎，并指出可能会出现误报。
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. 此时，《连线》的高级编辑要求我调查此事，因为自 2024 年以来，我一直在报道各种形式的“AI 垃圾内容”（AI slop）。我的第一步是将全书文本通过 Pangram 的检测工具进行运行。（虽然所有 AI 检测工具都有局限性，且可能出现误报，但 Pangram 是目前公认的黄金标准。）结果显示，该书有 53% 的内容似乎是由人工智能生成的，另有 9% 被判定为可能有人工智能辅助。
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.) 我致电罗森鲍姆，要求他更详细地描述他是如何使用人工智能来写这本书的，以及他是否对 Pangram 的结果有异议。（出版《真相的未来》的 BenBella Books 未回复置评请求。在美国负责分销 BenBella 图书的西蒙与舒斯特出版社（Simon & Schuster）拒绝置评。）
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.” 罗森鲍姆不愿评价 Pangram 结果的准确性。事实上，他根本不想谈论这些。“我不参与那种对话，”他说，“这就像问‘你打老婆了吗？’一样，这是一种无法回应的指控。”
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.” 相反，他主动提出大致解释一下他的编辑流程。他说，在写作初期，他将人工智能工具当作搜索引擎使用，帮助他为书中研究密集型的章节搜集信息。为了演示他是如何操作的，他让 ChatGPT 描述我，然后大声读出了结果。AI 的搜索结果或多或少准确地描述了我之前的一些报道，包括关于人工智能生成的“僵尸媒体网站”的工作。
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.” 当我要求他直接回答是否使用人工智能撰写或编辑过书中的任何段落时，他给出了一个拐弯抹角的回答。“不，写作不是这样的。答案是，你获取素材——比如，刚才关于凯特（Kate）的回答，如果我要写关于你的文章，我会怎么做？我会把它复制到 Google Docs 里，然后围绕它写点东西并稍作编辑吗？我会把‘僵尸媒体网站’这几个词加上引号吗？也许会。但我不会说，‘太棒了，这解决了关于凯特的写作问题，我要把它贴进文档里发给出版商。’”
“But would you copy and paste it, and then edit it?” I asked. “那你还是会复制粘贴，然后进行编辑，对吧？”我问道。
“Probably,” he replied. “可能会吧，”他回答。
“Did you do that in this book?” “你在写这本书时这样做过吗？”
“I don’t remember. You’re looking for a smoking gun, and there isn’t one.” “我不记得了。你在找确凿的证据，但根本没有。”
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.” 罗森鲍姆说，那些“每天早上醒来想要产生灵感”的作家现在“生活在恐惧中，这对民主是不健康的”。在我还没来得及问这具体是什么意思时，他继续说道：“我今天早上和另一位作者谈过，她的书下个月就要交给出版商了，她简直吓坏了。”
I asked if that was because she used AI in the process of writing the book. 我问这是不是因为她在写作过程中使用了人工智能。
“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. “当然。你说话的语气带有指责意味，好像她用了什么作弊工具一样。”他提到一份报告，称记者群体中人工智能的使用率高达 82%。他说《连线》的生成式人工智能政策过于严苛，并推测我们的作者很可能在私下里使用人工智能。
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.” 他重申了自己对人工智能的坚持，并指出他每天仍在使用它。“如果我不再犯错的唯一方法就是彻底停止使用人工智能，那是不现实的。如果答案是停止写作，那也不是完全不可能。”
I asked him whether he would rather stop writing than stop using AI in his writing process. “Yeah,” he answered. 我问他，比起在写作过程中停止使用人工智能，他是否宁愿停止写作。“是的，”他回答。
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 tool. 罗森鲍姆在承认使用人工智能可能会导致问题（“我不明白为什么作为作者，我有义务去和一家把‘幻觉’当作商业模式植入其信息流的数十亿美元公司玩打地鼠游戏”）与反复坚持人工智能不可或缺之间摇摆不定，称其为最好的写作工具。