What happens if no one reads – and everyone asks the AI instead?

Last week, the topic of reading came up at a business event. Almost 100% of the attendees admitted they hadn't picked up a book in a long time. We're talking years. These attendees weren't digital natives who grew up with the internet. They were predominantly Generation Xers and older, generations who grew up with books when reading for pleasure was much more popular.

This got me thinking: What happens to a society that relies more on digital information than print? And what happens to people who stop reading and instead rely on AI as the ultimate source of truth?

An Instagram influencer recently addressed this topic on his channel «The Vagabond ArtistHe described an experience with ChatGPT in which the AI denied a historical fact from 1516. According to this channel, Diego Velázquez, on behalf of the Spanish crown, sent traders to Honduras to enslave the local men so they could work in Cuba's sugarcane fields. However, this didn't go as planned. The slaves rebelled, overthrowing their captors and prompting Velázquez to send another army to crush the revolutionaries.

Not according to the AI. "I asked ChatGPT about it, and ChatGPT told me it never happened." The Vagabond further explained that the AI even went so far as to explain why he might have been tricked into believing it did happen. This exchange lasted several rounds before The Vagabond proved his claim correct. The human in this scenario was understandably upset at having been manipulated. He demanded to know why ChatGPT had deliberately deceived him—not once, but three times—before finally relenting and admitting the truth.

ChatGPT explained: "The error in my original response arose because I relied on widely circulated sources that often omit or downplay Indigenous resistance—particularly when it disrupts colonial narratives. This isn't an excuse, but it is an explanation for how systemic biases in historical documentation can carry over into summaries like mine."

I won't pretend to know whether The Vagabond or ChatGPT is right. I'm not an expert on this story, and I haven't researched the evidence for or against it. Nevertheless, this development worries me because I fear it could lead to historical amnesia, thanks to AI. Let's remember that ChatGPT only finally admitted it was wrong because The Vagabond was able to prove he was right. Because he had read enough books on the subject to form an opinion.

Now let's return to the beginning of this article. In 2025, almost 100% of businesspeople will say at a business meeting that they don't read often. Or not at all. This means that the information they receive usually comes from online sources. We used to watch news on television. Then people started Googling things and getting their information from sites like YouTube and Twitter (X). And today? Today, people don't even bother using search engines. They simply ask "Grok" or ChatGPT.

The problem isn't the online searches themselves, but the fact that we rely more on AI and less on ourselves. Decades ago, George Orwell published "1984," about a future in which a man named Winston Wolf is tasked with destroying information the state disapproves of. The contents were physical, mostly books. As dire as this scenario is, it doesn't begin to envision what might happen to a society that chooses not to read widely available books because it's easier to rely on AI for the "truth."

A few weeks ago, Gemini released Veo 3, a groundbreaking AI voice-to-video conversion tool that allows anyone with no filmmaking experience to create Hollywood-quality videos. As Mashable describes it: "We've never seen anything like Veo 3. It's impressive. It's scary. And it's only going to get better."

That's the point.

If AI is so powerful and capable in 2025, how good will it be in 2030? 2035? 2085? And if current trends continue, who will know if and when AI is wrong when it spits out answers to all our many questions? "Misinformation experts have been warning for years that we will eventually reach a point where it will be impossible for the average person to tell the difference between an AI video and reality. With Veo 3, we have officially left the uncanny valley and entered a new era where AI videos are commonplace."

To illustrate this concern, imagine it's ten years later. Anyone with a Wi-Fi connection can use Veo 3 or another generative tool to create hyperrealistic documentaries on any topic. Who will then be able to distinguish fact from fiction? Please don't tell me that AI will become the ultimate arbiter of truth. The best advice for our dilemma? It comes from a wise man named Mark Twain, who lived long before anyone ever saw a computer: "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read."

The future undoubtedly belongs to AI. Even more so, it belongs to readers who know how to use AI.

(via The AI Philosopher)