AI’s Hallucination Hangover: Why Misinformation May Send Us Back to Books

A conceptual illustration of artificial intelligence a technology that sometimes insists it’s right even when it’s wrong. The overconfidence of AI has sparked a debate about trust and truth in the digital age.

Just Imagine opening your morning paper to find a recommended summer reading list only to discover half the books don’t even exist. That actually happened: in May 2025, major newspapers unwittingly printed an AI generated list containing 10 fabricated books with convincing descriptions . Or consider the courtroom drama where a lawyer, relying on an AI assistant, cited fake legal cases that the AI had entirely made up . These aren’t sci-fi scenarios or late night punchlines they’re real incidents eroding public trust in artificial intelligence. The irony is thick: we built AI to deliver knowledge quickly, yet its very fallibility is driving us back to slow, human led learning and the timeless wisdom of old books.

When AI’s Confidence Masks Its Mistakes

AI chatbots and large language models have a known habit of “hallucinating” a polite term for making things up. Generative AI is notorious for confidently fabricating facts and sources. It doesn’t shrug or stutter; it delivers falsehoods with the bold assurance of a know it all pub patron.

Key failure points include:

• Misinformation at Scale: AI can spread false information faster than ever. From bogus medical advice to historical inaccuracies, a mistake can go viral in seconds. For example, Amazon’s marketplace has been deluged with AI written books that are riddled with dangerous misinformation including mushroom foraging manuals that encourage risky tasting of possibly toxic fungi.
  

• Hallucinated “Facts”: AI often invents quotes, sources, and even entire academic papers. These hallucinations have real consequences such as listing a food bank as a must see tourist attraction on a travel blog.
  

• Overconfident Delivery: Perhaps the most frustrating failure point is AI’s tone of absolute certainty. As philosopher Bertrand Russell once quipped, “the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” In this scenario, the AI is the “cocksure” fool, and we humans are left doubting everything including whether we should have asked the AI in the first place.

Erosion of Trust in the Age of AI Errors

AI had its honeymoon phase writing poems, answering questions instantly, even passing professional exams. But the shine is wearing off. According to a 2025 global study, less than half of people trust AI in critical tasks. And it’s no wonder trust is hard to sustain when errors are so visible and sometimes damaging.

Even tech optimists admit there’s a problem. Generative AI’s habit of confidently contriving facts is well known. When AI can’t separate truth from its own fiction, how are users supposed to? It brings to mind George Orwell’s 1984, where “the past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.”

The erosion of trust isn’t just about specific bloopers it’s cumulative. People double check AI answers, educators warn students to avoid citing ChatGPT, and lawyers (who haven’t been sanctioned) now know better than to trust legal citations blindly. We’re shifting from “AI can’t be wrong” to “AI often is wrong.” In a way, that’s a return to critical thinking.

In Books We Trust: The Revival of Reliable Knowledge

Faced with digital doubt, many are turning to an old, trusted friend: books. Especially books written before the AI era repositories of reliable, original knowledge untouched by algorithmic remixing.

Why the comeback?

• Stability: A book by Carl Sagan won’t update itself overnight. It stays fixed, factual, and verifiable.

• Accountability: Human authors put their names on their work. AI generated content has no one to blame.

• Depth: Books deliver context, nuance, and contradiction everything AI tends to flatten.

Consider these classics now gaining fresh relevance:

• Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818): The original tale of unintended consequences. Shelley’s scientist warns, “I ardently hope that the gratification of your wishes may not be a serpent to sting you.”

• George Orwell’s 1984 (1949): In an era of deepfakes and hallucinated news, Orwell’s vision of reality control feels eerily prophetic.

• Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World (1995): Sagan predicted a time when people would struggle to distinguish what’s true. He called for skepticism and science literacy as a bulwark against misinformation.

• Bertrand Russell’s essays: Russell warned that the confident can be dangerously wrong. His call for doubt and rigorous thinking is more relevant than ever.

These aren’t just literary staples. They’re essential reading in a time where information is abundant but reliability is scarce.

The Case for Slow, Human Led Learning

Beyond books, we’re witnessing a return to slow learning deep reading, long form essays, lectures. Not because people are nostalgic, but because modern tools can’t be blindly trusted.

Why slow matters:

• Critical Thinking: Engaging with long form work builds skepticism. You think, question, and reflect not just absorb.

• Context: AI might give a snappy answer but miss the bigger picture. Books force us to see the forest, not just the tweet.

• Accountability: A human expert has something to lose if they get it wrong. AI does not.

This doesn’t mean we should shun AI. When used wisely, AI is a powerful assistant. But its flaws are teaching us a vital lesson: don’t outsource your thinking. Let AI suggest, but let books and your own reasoning verify.

Conclusion: Reading Our Way Out of the Fog

It’s been a whirlwind ride with AI full of brilliance, but also blunders. Its hallucinations have reminded us that convenience without credibility is a dangerous game.

But there’s hope. The backlash is teaching us to think, to question, to double check. And that, ironically, is the very mindset that might improve AI’s future if it learns to respect truth as much as we do.

So let’s enjoy what AI can offer and keep our well loved books close by. Because in a world where the machine might hallucinate, it’s the printed page that might just keep us grounded.

Anamika Pandey

Founder of Progress Wings

---

What’s your take?

• 0%I agree we’re heading back to books.
• 0%I’m not convinced, AI still holds the future.