Author Anthony Horowitz has shared details about his approach to incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) into his research process, emphasizing that while AI is a useful tool, it remains only one element among many in his creative workflow. Horowitz’s comments come amidst ongoing debates over AI’s role in the literary world, highlighted earlier this year when approximately 10,000 authors released an “empty book” in protest against AI’s use of their works without permission.

In a recent discussion, Horowitz illustrated how AI assists him in gathering factual information but does not replace traditional research or his own creative input. During the conversation, he referenced a new historical fiction novel he is working on, supported by extensive reading from historical texts such as Ian Buruma’s *Stay Alive: Berlin 1939-1945*. Despite access to AI, Horowitz stressed that books remain his primary source of knowledge. “My first source of knowledge and information is still books,” he said, noting the numerous volumes he has consulted for the novel.

Horowitz provided an example from the manuscript involving a scene at Croydon Aerodrome, set in 1933. AI supplied two factual details: the name of the airport and the existence of a medical station where arriving passengers were screened for diseases. However, other elements, including descriptions of the passport and the emotional relationship between the characters, drew from his own research and narrative imagination. “Even in that little chunk, you have three sources: AI, books, and me as a writer,” he explained.

He also emphasized the importance of verifying AI-generated information. Horowitz recounted an incident where AI incorrectly summarized the plot of one of his previous novels, highlighting potential risks in relying solely on such technology without cross-checking. He compared this to a hypothetical scenario in medicine, suggesting that depending on inaccurate AI data in critical fields could have serious consequences.

Horowitz’s perspective reflects a nuanced view of AI’s role in authorship, acknowledging its benefits for fact-finding while underscoring the continued necessity of human judgment and thorough research in literary creation.