The debate is getting louder – so let’s actually look at what’s happening.
If you’ve been in any room with talent managers or brand strategists lately, you’ll know this topic has a habit of derailing the agenda. Everyone has a take. Some are worried. Some are excited. Most are probably a bit of both. So rather than add another hot take to the pile, let’s just look at where things actually stand.
The numbers pulling in opposite directions
Here’s the tension at the heart of this debate. On one side, brand investment in AI-generated content is accelerating. On the other, consumer appetite for it appears to be going the other way. Only 26% of consumers now say they prefer AI-generated creator content to traditional creator content – down from 60% in 2023. That’s a pretty dramatic shift in a short space of time.
But before we declare AI dead in the water, it’s worth pausing on why brands are still pouring money into it. The efficiency argument is real. AI tools offer speed, scale, and cost savings that are genuinely hard to ignore, particularly for brands running large volumes of content across multiple markets. For some use cases – product visualisation, localisation, testing creative variations – the case for AI tools is pretty solid.
The question is whether those use cases extend to the kind of creator-led, trust-driven content that actually moves audiences. And that’s where it gets more complicated.
The messiness problem
Here’s something you don’t often hear in the AI hype cycle: brands are increasingly willing to embrace creators’ imperfections – and may even start requesting those imperfections in future deals. The un-made bed. The hair that’s not quite right. The spontaneous laugh that wasn’t in the script. As one industry observer put it, AI can’t replicate the messiness of human creativity – and audiences are craving exactly that now, craving imperfection and things that feel genuinely off-script in a human way.
That’s a striking reversal from even a few years ago, when brands would routinely ask creators to clean up their backgrounds and tighten up their delivery. The AI saturation of feeds has, perhaps unintentionally, made human imperfection a differentiator. Whether that lasts is another question, but right now, it’s real.
On the other side of the argument, there are plenty of creators already using AI tools extensively in their workflow without any apparent damage to their audience relationships. Creator economy strategist Gigi Robinson thinks the key question going forward is specificity: 2026 is going to be all about getting really specific about how you use AI in your workflow. In other words, it’s not whether you use AI — it’s where, and how transparently.
The “human-made” signal
One of the more interesting developments of the past few months is the emergence of “human-made” as an actual marketing position. iHeartMedia’s own research found that 90% of its listeners, including those who use AI tools themselves – want their media created by humans. That’s a company with serious commercial skin in this game, and they’re leaning into it.
Some brands are taking a more pointed approach — Cadbury’s “Make AI Mediocre Again” campaign is a witty critique of AI’s ubiquity, while Dove has pledged to never use AI-generated women in its advertising, continuing its long-standing commitment to authentic representation.
But here’s the nuance that often gets lost. When the same creative work is labelled as either “human-made” or “AI-made,” people consistently rate the human-attributed version as more meaningful and beautiful — even when the work is identical. That tells us something important: a lot of this is about perception and attribution, not just quality. Which raises a genuinely tricky question for talent managers — how much does the story of how content was made matter to audiences, and how should that shape the advice you give clients?
The regulatory piece nobody wants to deal with
Whichever side of this debate you land on, there’s one dimension that’s going to affect everyone: disclosure. California’s AB 853 requires what’s effectively a “digital birth certificate” for content – metadata that tells platforms and consumers exactly where an asset came from. Colorado’s SB24-205 adds further pressure around algorithmic discrimination, mandating a rigorous duty of care for brands using AI in consequential decisions.
The regulatory picture is still messy – a December executive order from the Trump administration to pre-empt state laws in favour of a “minimally burdensome” federal framework has left businesses in a genuinely uncertain position. Do you prepare for the strictest state rules, or wait for a federal standard that may not materialise? It’s not a comfortable place to be.
What’s clear is that the era of quietly slipping AI-generated content into campaigns without flagging it is coming to an end. For talent managers, that means contracts and client briefings are going to need updating — sooner rather than later.
So, threat or tool?
Honestly? Probably both, depending on how you use it and who your clients are. The creators most likely to feel genuine pressure are those whose value proposition was always primarily about volume and consistency — because those are exactly the things AI does well. The creators with a distinctive voice, genuine audience trust, and something irreplaceable about their perspective are in a stronger position than the headlines might suggest.
What seems increasingly clear is that “AI versus human” is a false binary. The more useful framing is AI as support rather than replacement — helping with editing, analytics, and optimisation, while humans remain the storytellers. The managers who help their clients find that balance thoughtfully, and document it clearly, are probably going to come out of this period in good shape.
But it’s a conversation worth having with your roster now, before someone else has it for you.
Where does your agency stand on AI content? We’d love to hear how the conversation is going with your clients. Comment below!
