The Internet, and especially LinkedIn, is awash with mediocre, missing point-of-view, “it’s not this — it’s that”, generated “content”; we all know it, we’ve all seen it, every day. The first problem is we’ve become aware — we can see it, see the patterns in the text, the flow, the words that are chosen (how many people are “thrilled” on LinkedIn, compared to say, real life?), the simple lack of humanity.

The second, and more important, problem is that people are unhappy, genuinely unhappy, with generated content being forced upon them, with mediocre content becoming the norm; people are asking for transparency, authenticity and humanity.

How do we know this? It’s everywhere and everyone is talking about it; just look for LinkedIn comments, for people calling out the stories, the lack of tone, the lack of content for want of a better word.

That pattern alone tells a story, but there’s harder evidence too — brands have already faced backlash when they deployed AI-generated content:

  • Selkie faced customer backlash to AI-generated artwork[05]
  • Skechers received criticism for AI-generated print ad execution[06]
  • Coca-Cola saw mixed reception to their AI remake of “Holidays Are Coming”[07]
  • J.Crew sparked “AI slop” controversy on Instagram[08]
  • Guess in Vogue generated debate over AI “models” replacing human talent[09]

The pattern is forming, and people are going to continue to call it out. But when companies are transparent, it also leads to lack of trust, as a new study shows.[04]

The Humanity Gap

AI as a tool is fantastic — it enables a lot of people to create something “new”; but it in some ways doesn’t feel as ‘new’ as it should.

As explored in “The Mirror Trap”[01], AI cannot create new, it cannot create new thought; it can see patterns in existing data, it can create what has already been created. We all saw that ability when everyone used the Studio Ghibli style on every photo for about a week.

This is where I think the tension is coming from. People can see that content is AI generated, can’t quite put their finger on why, but this may be the root cause to that tension — the missing humanity and missing “newness”.

This is just an extension of the workslop I recently wrote about.[10] It feels sloppy when we see obviously generated content. And then come the ramifications: Deloitte recently had to refund the Australian Government for a report filled with AI-generated errors, including fabricated academic references and false quotes.[11]

Typically I'd say the way to address this is through transparency. I still stand by that opinion — despite the new study.

Even OpenAI recognises this limitation — they’re now hiring content managers to ensure authenticity[02], a clear signal that the technology alone isn’t enough. Solving it requires more than simply disclosing AI use; it’ll start with understanding where the humanity is in your business.

The Transparency Trap

So here’s the paradox: people want authenticity and transparency, but research shows that when companies disclose AI use, trust actually decreases rather than increases. We’re caught between two competing demands — be honest about using AI, but know that honesty might damage trust more than silence would.

I and others believe there is still a way forward, to provide the transparency but to assuage any concerns — the value proposition. The value is… the humanity of it all.

Where in the process is the humanity, where is it that the human undertakes for example higher-order thinking or the creative ideation? Where has AI removed the burden of a sticky time-consuming process? This is, I think, what people are asking for; for responsible, thoughtful use of AI.

This is something I’ve exemplified throughout my journey of building Underfold. All articles have the same call-out — “Authored by John; ChatGPT-5 acting as an editor”; this article is slightly different, I’ve moved to Claude for this workflow. I did this from the very beginning to address what I thought was coming down the pipeline: a study that proved people stop paying attention to content when they know it’s generated by AI. I wanted to call out from the beginning that I was using AI as part of the process, but highlight the human in the process. From conversations, I’ve only had positive feedback so far.

Leader Actions

AI isn’t the enemy of authenticity. Generic disclosure is. Silence is. Flooding the world with thoughtless, generated content is.

But AI used thoughtfully, with humans driving strategy and creativity, with clear communication about who did what? That’s not a threat to trust. It’s capacity. It’s a small team delivering like a large one. It’s freeing people from the sticky processes to focus on what actually requires human judgement.

The transparency paradox resolves when we stop defending AI use and start demonstrating human value. Map where that value lives. Show it clearly. Listen to how people respond. The businesses that get this right won’t be the ones avoiding AI or hiding it. They’ll be the ones making the humanity impossible to miss.

That’s when you can truly Trust Your AI — not because you’ve disclosed it, but because you’ve built something worth trusting.