Business Insider recommended nonexistent books to staff as it leans into AI
But less than a year ago, the company had to quietly apologize to some staff for accidentally recommending that they read books that did not appear to exist but instead may have been generated by AI.
In an email to staff last May, a senior editor at Business Insider sent around a list of what she called 'Beacon Books,' a list of memoirs and other acclaimed business nonfiction books, with the idea of ensuring staff understood some of the fundamental figures and writing powering good business journalism.
Many of the recommendations were well-known recent business, media, and tech nonfiction titles such as by Andrew Ross Sorkin, by James Stewart, and by Mike Isaac.
But a few were unfamiliar to staff. by former Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel was nowhere to be found. Neither was , which was supposedly published by the company Charles River Editors in 2019. Semafor could not find any evidence that either book exists.
The list also recommended a book called , supposedly written by an author named Jasper Robin. While a Goodreads page exists for the book, which claims it is only 61 pages long, the page has no reviews or other information. It is not available for purchase on Amazon or from any other retailers.
Another recommendation was by Fredric Morgan, though no such book exists. The company likely meant to recommend by Ron Chernow. by Andrew MacCarthy was on the list of suggested reads, though no such book exists. (BI could have been meaning to recommend by Scott Perry, a how-to guide for how to use the photo messaging platform.)
The company also recommended by someone named Celeste Olivier, published in 2008. The real version was written by Larry Gerston in 2003.
A Business Insider spokesperson declined to comment.The embarrassing incident was shared with Semafor last week after the company said it was doubling down on AI amid steep staff reductions. In a note on Thursday, CEO Barbara Peng said that the company had launched multiple AI-driven products including gen-AI onsite search and an AI-powered paywall, and would soon be rolling out additional products. She also noted that 70% of staff were already using enterprise ChatGPT, and the company was building 'prompt libraries and sharing everyday use cases that help us work faster, smarter, and better.'
'The media industry is at a crossroads,' Peng wrote. 'Business models are under pressure, distribution is unstable, and competition for attention is fiercer than ever. At the same time, there's a huge opportunity for companies who harness AI first. Our strategy is strong, but we don't have the luxury of time. The pace of change combined with the opportunity ahead demands bold, focused action — and it's our chance to lead the pack.'
Some employees have been wary of the incorporation of AI into everyday work tasks, believing that the company will eventually replace journalists with AI. In a statement after the move, Business Insider's union expressed frustration with the cuts and the simultaneous embrace of AI.
'Tone deaf doesn't even begin to describe this,' the union wrote.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WebMD
17 minutes ago
- WebMD
The Real Risks of Turning to AI for Therapy
Aug. 20, 2025 — Whenever Luke W Russell needs to work through something, they turn to ChatGPT. (Luke uses they/them pronouns.) 'I've wept as I've navigated things,' said the Indianapolis filmmaker, who uses the chatbot to pick apart intrusive thoughts or navigate traumatic memories. 'I've had numerous times when what ChatGPT is saying to me is so real, so powerful, and I feel so deeply seen.' Russell's experience reflects a broader, growing reality: Many people are turning to chatbots for mental health support — for everything from managing anxiety and processing grief to coping with work conflicts and defusing marital spats. More than half of adults ages 18-54 — and a quarter of adults 55 and up — say they would be comfortable talking with an AI chatbot about their mental health, according to a 2025 survey by the Harris Poll and the American Psychological Association (APA). The catch: OpenAI's ChatGPT and other chatbots — like Anthropic's Claude and Google's Gemini — are not designed for this. Even AI products promoted as emotional health tools — like Replika, Wysa, Youper, and MindDoc — were not built on validated psychological methods, said psychologist C. Vaile Wright, PhD, senior director of the APA's Office of Health Care Innovation. 'I would argue that there isn't really any commercially approved, AI-assisted therapy at the moment,' said Wright. 'You've got a whole lot of chatbots where there is no research, there's no psychological science, and there are no subject matter experts.' Critics warn that AI's potential for bias, lack of true empathy, and limited human oversight could actually endanger users' mental health, especially among vulnerable groups like children, teens, people with mental health conditions, and those experiencing suicidal thoughts. The growing concern has led to the emergence of the terms 'ChatGPT psychosis' or ' AI psychosis ' — referring to the potential harmful mental health effects of interacting with AI. It's even drawing attention from lawmakers: This month, Illinois enacted restrictions on AI in mental health care, banning its use for therapy and prohibiting mental health professionals from using AI to communicate with clients or make therapeutic decisions. (Similar restrictions have already been passed in Nevada and Utah.) But none of this is stopping people from turning to chatbots for support, especially amid clinician shortages, rising therapy costs, and inadequate mental health insurance coverage. 'People have absolutely reported that experiences with chatbots can be helpful,' said Wright. The Draw of Chatbots for Mental Health Data shows we're facing a massive shortage of mental health workers, especially in remote and rural areas, said psychologist Elizabeth Stade, PhD, a researcher in the Computational Psychology and Well-Being Lab at Stanford University in Stanford, CA. 'Of adults in the United States with significant mental health needs, only about half are able to access any form of treatment. With youth, that number is closer to 75%,' said Jessica Schleider, PhD, a child and adolescent psychologist at Northwestern University in Chicago. 'The provider shortage is clearly contributing to why so many folks are turning to their devices and, now increasingly, to generative AI to fill that gap.' Unlike a therapist, a chatbot is available 24/7. 'When [people] need help the most, it is typically after hours,' said Wright, who suggested the right AI tool could potentially supplement human therapy. 'When it's 2 a.m. and you're in crisis, could this help provide some support?' Probably, she said. Results of the first clinical trial of an AI-generative therapy chatbot showed 'significant, clinically meaningful reductions in depression, anxiety, and eating disorder symptoms' within four to eight weeks, said lead study author Michael V. Heinz, MD, a professor at Dartmouth College's Geisel School of Medicine and faculty affiliate at the Center for Technology and Behavioral Health in Lebanon, New Hampshire. The chatbot — Therabot, developed at Dartmouth — combines extensive training in evidence-based psychotherapy interventions with advanced generative AI. 'We saw high levels of user engagement — six-plus hours on average across the study,' Heinz said. Participants said using Therabot was like talking to a human therapist. But results are early, and more studies are needed, Heinz said. Access and affordability drew Russell to ChatGPT, they said. 'I didn't set out to use ChatGPT as a therapist. I quit therapy in January due to income dropping. I was already using ChatGPT on the regular for work, and then I started using it for personal idea exploration. ... I've never had a therapist who could move as fast as ChatGPT and ignore miscellaneous things,' they said. Perhaps one of the most appealing aspects is that chatbots don't judge. 'People are reluctant to be judged, and so they are often reluctant to disclose symptoms,' said Jonathan Gratch, PhD, professor of computer science and psychology at the University of Southern California, who has researched the topic. One of his studies found that military veterans were more likely to share PTSD symptoms with a virtual chatbot than in a survey. When Chatbots Are Harmful Most people don't know how AI works — they might believe it's always objective and factual, said Henry A. Willis, PhD, a psychologist and professor at the University of Maryland in College Park. But often, the data they're trained on is not representative of minority groups, leading to bias and technology-mediated racism, Willis said. 'We know that Black and brown communities are not adequately reflected in the majority of large-scale mental health research studies,' Willis said. So a chatbot's clinical symptom information or treatment recommendations may not be relevant or helpful to those from minority backgrounds. There's also an impersonal aspect. Chatbots do what's called ecological fallacy, said H. Andrew Schwartz, PhD, associate professor of computer science at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, NY. They treat scattered comments like random data points, making assumptions based on group-level data that may not reflect the reality of individuals. And who's accountable if something goes wrong? Chatbots have been linked to cases involving suggestions of violence and self-harm, including the death of a teen by suicide. Some chatbots marketed for companionship and emotional support were designed with another incentive: to make money. Wright is concerned that they may unconditionally validate patients, telling them what they want to hear so they stay on the platform — 'even if what they're telling you is actually harmful or they're validating harmful responses from the user.' None of these conversations are bound by HIPAA regulations, either, Wright pointed out. 'So even though they may be asking for personal information or sharing your personal information, they have no legal obligation to protect it.' The Psychological Implications of Forming Emotional Bonds With AI In an opinion article published in April in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences, psychologists expressed concern about the long-term implications of forming emotional bonds with AI. Chatbots can replace users' real relationships, crowding out romantic partners, co-workers, and friends. This may mean that individuals begin to 'trust' the opinion and feedback of chatbots over real people, said Willis. 'The ongoing positive reinforcement that can happen instantly from interacting with a chatbot may begin to overshadow any reinforcement from interacting with real people,' who may not be able to communicate as quickly, he said. 'These emotional bonds may also impair people's ability to have a healthy level of skepticism and critical evaluation skills when it comes to the responses of AI chatbots.' Gratch compared it to hunger and food. 'We're biologically wired to seek out food when we get hungry. It is the same with social relationships. If we haven't had a relationship in a while, we may feel lonely, and then that motivates us to go out and reach out to people.' But studies suggest that social interaction with a computer program, like a chatbot, can sate a person's social needs and demotivate them to go out with friends, he said. 'That may have long-term consequences for increased loneliness. For example, research has shown people who compulsively use Facebook tend to be much more lonely.' Counseling with a therapist involves 'a natural curiosity about the individual and their experiences that AI cannot replicate,' Willis said. 'AI chatbots respond to prompts, whereas therapists can observe and ask clinical questions based on one's body language, a synthesis of their history, and other things that may not be conscious to the client — or things the client may not even be aware are important to their mental health well-being.' The Future of AI Therapy "I think there is going to be a future where you have really well-developed [chatbots] for addressing mental health that are scientifically driven and where they are ensuring that there are guardrails in place when somebody is in crisis. We're just not quite there yet,' said the APA's Wright. 'We may get to a place where they're even reimbursed by insurance,' she said. 'I do think increasingly we are going to see providers begin to adopt these technology tools as a way to meet their patients' needs.' But for now, her message is clear: The chatbots are not there yet. 'Ideally, chatbot design should encourage sustained, meaningful interaction with the primary purpose of delivering evidence-based therapy,' said Dartmouth's Heinz. Until then, don't rely on them too heavily, the experts cautioned — and remember, they are not a substitute for professional help.
Bloomberg
18 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Stock Movers: TJX, Target, Estée Lauder
On this edition of Stock Movers: - TJX (TJX) shares are up after the off-price retailer raised its full-year earnings per share outlook after better-than-expected results, a sign that shoppers wary of economic uncertainty are turning to discounters. The TJ Maxx and Marshalls parent now expects full-year earnings per share of $4.52 to $4.57, up from $4.34 to $4.43. The company said it assumed it will be able to offset the significant pressure it expects from tariffs throughout next year. Revenue of $14.4 billion in the three months ending Aug. 2 beat analysts' expectations. Chief Executive Officer Ernie Herrman said in the statement that the current quarter is 'off to a strong start.' - Target (TGT) shares fell as the retailer's pick for an internal CEO appointment offset better-than-expected 2Q results and its maintained guidance. Target named veteran Michael Fiddelke as its next chief executive officer, betting that the insider will revive the storied retailer struggling with weak sales. The company said Wednesday the board unanimously elected Fiddelke, who currently serves as chief operating officer, to be CEO starting in February. He will also join Target's board, while current CEO Brian Cornell, who has led the big-box retailer since 2014, will transition to focus on his role as executive chair. - Estée Lauder Cos. (EL) shares fell today. The company said it has hired external advisers to conduct a review of the brands it owns in a bid to accelerate a turnaround after years of sales declines. Chief Executive Officer Stéphane de La Faverie said the company is rethinking its portfolio in order to 'focus on our highest return opportunities over the medium to long term,' he told analysts on an earnings call. 'We will share updates in due course,' he added. The company has a variety of brands that focus on selling skin care, cosmetics, haircare and fragrances. In the most recent fiscal year, sales in the company's skin care division fell 12% because of declines in the Estée Lauder and La Mer brands. Earlier Wednesday, Estée Lauder issued a weak profit outlook for its fiscal year that was dragged down in part by tariff costs.
New York Times
18 minutes ago
- New York Times
We're Already Living in the Post-A.I. Future
In 2023 — just as ChatGPT was hitting 100 million monthly users, with a large minority of them freaking out about living inside the movie 'Her' — the artificial intelligence researcher Katja Grace published an intuitively disturbing industry survey that found that one-third to one-half of top A.I. researchers thought there was at least a 10 percent chance the technology could lead to human extinction or some equally bad outcome. A couple of years later, the vibes are pretty different. Yes, there are those still predicting rapid intelligence takeoff, along both quasi-utopian and quasi-dystopian paths. But as A.I. has begun to settle like sediment into the corners of our lives, A.I. hype has evolved, too, passing out of its prophetic phase into something more quotidian — a pattern familiar from our experience with nuclear proliferation, climate change and pandemic risk, among other charismatic megatraumas. If last year's breakout big-think A.I. text was 'Situational Awareness' by Leopold Aschenbrenner — a 23-year-old former OpenAI researcher who predicted that humanity was about to be dropped into an alien universe of swarming superintelligence — this year's might be a far more modest entry, 'A.I. as Normal Technology,' published in April by Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor, two Princeton-affiliated computer scientists and skeptical Substackers. Rather than seeing A.I. as 'a separate species, a highly autonomous, potentially superintelligent entity,' they wrote, we should understand it 'as a tool that we can and should remain in control of, and we argue that this goal does not require drastic policy interventions or technical breakthroughs.' Just a year ago, 'normal' would have qualified as deflationary contrarianism, but today it seems more like an emergent conventional wisdom. In January the Oxford philosopher and A.I. whisperer Toby Ord identified what he called the 'scaling paradox': that while large language models were making pretty impressive gains, the amount of resources required to make each successive improvement was growing so quickly that it was hard to believe that the returns were all that impressive. The A.I. cheerleaders Tyler Cowen and Dwarkesh Patel have begun emphasizing the challenges of integrating A.I. into human systems. (Cowen called this the 'human bottleneck' problem.) In a long interview with Patel in February, Microsoft's chief executive, Satya Nadella, threw cold water on the very idea of artificial general intelligence, saying that we were all getting ahead of ourselves with that kind of talk and that simple G.D.P. growth was a better measure of progress. (His basic message: Wake me up when that hits 10 percent globally.) Perhaps more remarkable, OpenAI's Sam Altman, for years the leading gnomic prophet of superintelligence, has taken to making a similar point, telling CNBC this month that he had come to believe that A.G.I. was not even 'a superuseful term' and that in the near future we were looking not at any kind of step change but at a continuous walk along the same upward-sloping path. Altman hyped OpenAI's much-anticipated GPT-5 ahead of time as a rising Death Star. Instead, it debuted to overwhelmingly underwhelming reviews. In the aftermath, with skeptics claiming vindication, Altman acknowledged that, yes, we're in a bubble — one that would produce huge losses for some but also large spillover benefits like those we know from previous bubbles (railroads, the internet). This week the longtime A.I. booster Eric Schmidt, too, shifted gears to argue that Silicon Valley needed to stop obsessing over A.G.I. and focus instead on practical applications of the A.I. tools in hand. Altman's onetime partner and now sworn enemy Elon Musk recently declared that for most people, the best use for his large language model, Grok, was to turn old photos into microvideos like those captured by the Live feature on your iPhone camera. And these days, Aschenbrenner doesn't seem to be working on safety and catastrophic risk; he's running a $1.5 billion A.I. hedge fund instead. In the first half of 2025, it turned a 47 percent profit. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
