The End of Authentic Communication
Hank Green is like a younger Bill Nye, explaining complicated science in easy-to-follow videos. A few weeks ago, his millions of followers across YouTube and social media were stunned when he admitted to using generative AI in his research and scripting process. Viewers had already picked up on machine-like phrasing in some videos, calling out phrases like “I appreciate the pushback.” On a few occasions, Hank had to film corrections for a few videos that included AI-sourced misinformation.
Hank’s brand was built on authentic, human-driven science communication. This reveal violated the expectations his audience had about how that work was created. Many value Hank’s videos because they reflect his own research, thinking and expertise. Choosing to include AI within that left some fans feeling betrayed.
Hank's experience raises a bigger question: As AI use increases, where do we need more human judgment in communication?
Authentic Communication
Before AI, one of the biggest work buzzwords was authenticity. Authentic leadership, authentic communication, showing up authentically, authentic feedback…it was the word that filled corporate bingo cards on calls. Keynotes, development programs, and endless articles all pointed at the same target: how to do your work with authenticity.
A lot of energy went to something that didn’t move the needle very much.
We spent years telling leaders to "bring their authentic selves to work" while giving them competency models, communication templates, executive presence programs, approved language, and three-slide frameworks for doing it.
We industrialized authenticity and taught people what it was supposed to sound like. The more people tried to sound authentic, the more they often sounded like each other.
Is the age of authentic communication over? I sure hope so.
I’m not suggesting that generative AI take its place. But if we never mastered authentic communication, perhaps it’s time to emphasize something different: judgment.
AI Makes It Easier to Skip Judgment
Communication has always had two parts: deciding what matters and expressing it. A person would have an idea, decide it was worth sharing, determine what the audience needed to know, and then find the words to communicate it.
AI can produce the last step in seconds, making it easy to skip the first three. A machine can generate the words before anyone has decided the idea deserves to be said.
Authenticity asks, “Did this reflect me?” Judgment asks, “Is this the right message for this audience at this time?”
The second question is harder, and AI makes it easy to skip while still producing something that looks polished.
Authenticity Was Never As Simple As We Made It
Consider a leader’s vulnerable story. If they tell the same story in almost exactly the same words in five presentations, is it still authentic the sixth time? At what point does repetition convert the story into a device?
We’ve always had speechwriters, communications teams, editors, researchers and other people helping leaders communicate. We don’t generally assume that a CEO personally typed every sentence in a keynote or shareholder letter.
Set aside the IP question and whether the words technically belong to you. The harder question is judgment: how much thinking has to be yours before the result still counts as yours? Is a message yours if AI generated it, and you delivered it? What if AI gives you the seed of an idea that you build on? Or you did the thinking and only used AI to research or polish the result? The answer depends on the context.
If AI helps write an announcement about a new expense-reporting process, most employees probably don’t care. But if AI writes a CEO’s announcement about layoffs, employees will care a great deal.
If a leader shares a personal story about a professional challenge, employees may interpret that differently if they know the story was generated by a machine.
The context for the message impacts whether any AI involvement changes what the audience believes they are receiving. Deciding that requires judgment.
The Human Advantage
I expect we'll see more disclosure about AI use in communication. But disclosure alone doesn't tell an audience whether a message is thoughtful, appropriate, or meaningful.
The harder work is deciding where AI belongs in the communication process and where it doesn't. The human advantage is our ability to decide what is being said and why.
We decide what matters and what audiences need to understand. That informs what belongs in a message and is worth saying. It also highlights whether the way we communicate it is consistent with the relationship we've built with our audience.
AI can help with some of that thinking. But the responsibility for the judgment remains ours.
Teams should talk through these decisions before they're forced to make them: Where does human judgment matter most in our communication? What should we never delegate, even if AI can do it well?
Those answers won't be the same for every team. That's okay. The point is to make the choices deliberately rather than letting the technology make them by default.
Recently, I was asked if I used AI in two different interviews. One was for a keynote. The other was for a Fractional Chief Storyteller role. I was glad they asked. More organizations should. My answer is simple: "When you hire me, you get me, not Gen AI. The perspective, stories and decisions behind my work are mine.”
Hank Green recently announced his new AI policy. He has decided that no script will be written, edited, or outlined by an LLM, that video theses must originate with a human, and that AI-generated images and music won't be used. He has made explicit, visible choices about where AI belongs in his process and where it doesn't.
That's judgment.
The technology will keep getting better at producing words, but it can’t decide which ones deserve to be said.
That part is still yours.
***
Check out my keynote: The Human Advantage: Leadership Skills AI Can’t Replace and read The Complete Guide to Leadership Communication.
***
Karen Eber is an award-winning author, TED speaker, and storytelling keynote speaker. She is the author of The Perfect Story and her TED Talk on how the brain responds to stories has been viewed more than 2.25 million times. As CEO and Chief Storyteller of Eber Leadership Group, she helps leaders communicate ideas that inform, influence, and inspire.
