Julie BroadYour Non-Fiction Sidekick for Writing, Publishing & Marketing a Book That Builds Your Brand and Grows Your Biz

Authors: AI Can Make You Look Bad #authorproblems #bookwritingtips

20 Jul 2026 · 1 min

Watch on YouTube

1:05

In this brief address, Julie Broad warns authors and editors that generative AI tools, unlike search engines, do not guarantee factual accuracy—they merely generate text that sounds plausible. She illustrates the problem with a concrete mis‑fact: a manuscript claimed Mount Ballyhoo was named after explorer Edmund J. Ballyhoo, when in reality it was named after Jack London’s dog. Because AI can produce convincing but false statements, manuscripts that rely on AI require substantially more fact‑checking—Julie notes editing time can increase fourfold. The core message is that authors’ credibility is at stake if they publish unverified AI‑generated content, and rigorous fact‑checking remains essential.

Chapters

Our full-time fact checker has flagged something really interesting. And the challenge is AI does not know what's true. It predicts what sounds true. And that difference is becoming a massive problem for authors. Take this example we ran into. The manuscript stated that Mount Ballyhoo was named after explorer Edmund J. Ballyhoo. Sounded right. But our fact checker double-checked it. And guess what? The mountain was actually named after Jack London's dog. Yeah, it sounded so good the author never questioned it. But imagine if the fact checker hadn't. So before you start hitting your ChatGPT for your research, remember it's not a search engine. AI tools are generators, not necessarily truth generators either. They predict likely language. They synthesize patterns. They're designed to sound coherent, but sounding coherent is not the same as being accurate. And that's the issue we're running into and why it's taking us 4 times as long to edit manuscripts that used AI. When you publish a book, people assume you checked your facts. Your credibility is on the line.