We live in an age of digital scepticism. Every time a new breakthrough in AI-generated video appears, be it Sora, Gemini or any other generative platform, the same intellectual shield follows immediately after the wow: this isn't credible, it lacks soul, you can tell it's AI.
It is a natural, almost biological reaction. But let me put a thought on the table, one that crosses my mind every time I see how we demonise technology while consuming prefabricated reality without blinking.
What is the real difference between an AI-generated avatar and a human who gets paid to read a script?
Think about it for a second. When a brand hires an influencer for a social media ad, what are we really watching? We see a flesh-and-blood person, yes. They have a pulse, they breathe and they pay taxes too. But their words are not their own. Their enthusiasm for that shampoo was written by a copywriter at an agency, approved by a marketing director and signed off by a legal department.
That human is, for all practical purposes, a biological render. A vehicle for transmitting a message that does not belong to them, a commercial transaction disguised as a personal recommendation that we accept as credible.
If we examine the process coolly, the contrast disappears. In the case of generative intelligence, deep down, we are facing the same thing. The only real difference lies in the method of production: one route requires lights, camera and action; the other simply a prompt.
The result is a message designed, calculated and delivered to persuade. Just two different ways of manufacturing the same product.
In the end, the resistance is not technological, it is profoundly human
We cling to the idea that only a person can convey a supposed truth, even when that person is acting under contract. We prefer the white lie of a simulated emotion to the cold simulation of a processed piece of data.
Perhaps the future of communication lies not in trying to humanise machines, but in no longer demanding that humans act as sales tools.