Every marketer knows the classic sales adage: “Sell the sizzle, not the steak.”
But with Generative AI, we’re positioning it as the entire meal rather than what it truly is: the tantalizing sizzle that should draw customers to your table.
The result?
Your brand becomes another forgettable voice in the AI echo chamber that your audience has learned to tune out.
But with Generative AI, we’re positioning it as the entire meal rather than what it truly is: the tantalizing sizzle that should draw customers to your table.
The result?
Your brand becomes another forgettable voice in the AI echo chamber that your audience has learned to tune out.
When algorithms control creativity, it's like a Michelin restaurant serving microwave meals, technically perfect, but soulless slop that your customers can taste the difference in.
And worse? It's erasing what makes your brand you.
And worse? It's erasing what makes your brand you.
The action figure fiasco
Last week, I got curious about this whole AI portrait trend flooding my feed. The ones with people posting those suspiciously flattering AI action figure renderings with captions like “I just typed ‘make me’ and got this perfect likeness!”
So, I decided to run my own little experiment. I asked ChatGPT to design a “limited edition action figure” of me, a Black female story spinner, idea wrangler, and verb hurdler.
What could possibly go wrong?
Version 1
So, I decided to run my own little experiment. I asked ChatGPT to design a “limited edition action figure” of me, a Black female story spinner, idea wrangler, and verb hurdler.
What could possibly go wrong?
Version 1
Apparently, after browsing three stock photos and half an issue of Essence, ChatGPT designed a Black woman. The hair? A gravity-defying helmet, stiff as a crash course in stereotypes. The features? Ethnically ambiguous at best. And somehow (nobody knows why) she's got two coffee cups and two notepads. One set just wasn't giving "empowered professional," I guess.
Version 2
In version two, I got detailed. Specific features, clear instructions. The algorithm took one look and went its own way anyway. The afro improved slightly, I'll give it that, but the rest? Zero coffees, one notepad, and two strategy books when I'd asked for one.
Version 3
So, I went harder on the prompt for round three. More detail, more specifics. But what came back was a curious blend of Tamron Hall's smile and Issa Rae's eyes. The algorithm's best guess when all else fails: blend famous Black women and hope for the best. The coffee cup was back. The marketing books, too, one sporting a title in fluent gibberish.
The human gap
The flaws weren't subtle. Hallucinated text. Branding with no connection to my actual work. And my personal identity, wiped clean.
ChatGPT's "vision" of me looked like it was designed by committee, corporate diversity brochure, aisle five.
And that's exactly what happens when no one's minding the machine. AI needs humans to fix its mess. Without us, it's just spitting back remixed versions of whatever it's been fed, and those inputs are often flawed, biased, and completely devoid of cultural context.
ChatGPT's "vision" of me looked like it was designed by committee, corporate diversity brochure, aisle five.
And that's exactly what happens when no one's minding the machine. AI needs humans to fix its mess. Without us, it's just spitting back remixed versions of whatever it's been fed, and those inputs are often flawed, biased, and completely devoid of cultural context.
The prompt paradox
Believing better prompts will solve everything is also a trap.
I asked for "a visionary Black creative with a journalistic background." It gave me a cyborg Oprah.
The more specific I got, the more it hallucinated. One version gave me three arms. Another had my nose drinking the coffee.
The pattern was clear: AI can match, but it can't truly see you.
I asked for "a visionary Black creative with a journalistic background." It gave me a cyborg Oprah.
The more specific I got, the more it hallucinated. One version gave me three arms. Another had my nose drinking the coffee.
The pattern was clear: AI can match, but it can't truly see you.
Smart AI use vs. abuse
Bottom line? AI can’t replace us. The final human edit is non-negotiable. Here's how to maintain control:
Do:
Don’t:
AI is a sous-chef, not the headliner. It can chop vegetables and maintain temperature, but it shouldn't design the menu or plate the final dish. That part's yours.
Do:
- Use AI when you're stuck for ideas
- Let it handle formatting and basic structures
- Use it for that word you just can't remember
- Use it as a weapon to fast-track your content marketing process
Don’t:
- Let it replace your creativity
- Let it make up stats or quotes (fact-check everything)
- Allow it to define your brand voice
- Accept its first draft as good enough
AI is a sous-chef, not the headliner. It can chop vegetables and maintain temperature, but it shouldn't design the menu or plate the final dish. That part's yours.
Alison is the founder and creative director of Copeland Creative, a Toronto-based strategic storytelling studio. She helps ambitious brands sharpen their voice with bold, unconventional content that builds authority and moves the right people to act.