Brands using AI to fake UGC aren’t innovating. I think they’re lying.

Brands using AI to fake UGC aren’t innovating. I think they’re lying.

I don’t want to be an absolutist. I really don’t.
I want to keep an open mind.

But when a brand creates content designed to look like it came from real people — so audiences trust it more — that feels like deception by design.

I’ve been sitting with this. A few questions keep coming up:

⸻

What if there’s a small “this was made with AI” in the caption… how many people actually see it?

Probably very few. Most people scroll fast and trust what looks familiar.
The fine print doesn’t change the intent — the goal is still to simulate authenticity.

⸻

Is this different from paying influencers to say something?

Yes. Even when it’s scripted, it’s still coming from a real person with a real voice and reputation. Influencer marketing has accountability — and ideally, the intent is clear and honest.

⸻

Is it different than paid reviews?

In some ways, it’s worse. Paid reviews are already ethically not cool. But AI-generated UGC removes the human entirely — and still pretends one is there.

⸻

And here’s where I really question myself:
I’ve taken content I’ve written and used AI to create a podcast — in my voice — with a fake host.

Was I wrong?
I did include a line saying it was AI-generated.

But was that still crossing the same line I’m criticizing?

Or is it different because it was my voice, my words, my ideas?

I don’t know.

But I think these are exactly the kinds of questions we should be asking right now.

⸻

I think we need to draw a line — and that line is intent.

If the goal is to inform, assist, or support — that’s strategy.

If the goal is to trick someone into believing something that isn’t real — that’s manipulation.

⸻

I’m still thinking through it.

But right now, it just doesn’t sit right.

I would love to hear, learn, and discuss with others.