It’s hard for people to tell the difference between AI-generated advertising and writing. So why do they respond better to the human-made stuff?

AI vs. Mad Men

Ipsos, along with faculty members from Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, just published a unique advertising study. They took 20 real ads from major brands, including Cheerios, Chewy, Febreze, Fiat, H&M, Old Navy, Herbal Essences, Ray-Ban Meta, TurboTax and Visa. They fed the same creative briefs used by the human ad creatives into Google Gemini, then used OpenAI’s Sora to generate fully AI-produced counterparts with no human intervention. 

They showed the ads to 3,000 consumers. Only 25% of AI ad viewers were at least somewhat confident the spot was AI-made, and 40% of all viewers were uncertain either way — suggesting the public isn’t great at spotting ads that are AI generated. 

But here’s the interesting part: While most people didn’t register that ads were AI-generated, they also didn’t respond to them like they did with human-generated ads. They consistently rated human-made work as more eye-catching and more imaginative. 

In other words, people assumed AI ads were made by people, but didn’t particularly like them compared to human-generated ads. And that means human-generated ads performed much better. 

Ads made by people without AI were 14% stronger on short-term sales impact and 17% stronger on long-term brand health.

To me, the data here suggests that while people can’t easily discern the difference between AI- and human-generated content, the AI stuff hits wrong on a subconscious level. And I think that’s happening with AI social posts, AI blog posts and AI slop in general. 

In fact, I’ve noticed it strongly in my own response to AI-generated content. It often looks perfect but bothers me for reasons that aren’t immediately obvious. 

The researchers explained AI’s inability to match human ad creativity by pointing out that AI draws from what already exists, while great advertising breaks new ground. AI can replicate the conventions of advertising, but it can’t transcend them, make a creative leap or engender emotion like people can. 

A broad range of research beyond the Ipsos study suggests that skillful people working with AI tools will always outperform AI alone, and often outperform people not using AI tools. Ipsos’ advice? Ad agencies should keep people at the center of brand storytelling and emotive assets. 

Can AI write right?

Another recent study looked at written web content and compared how human-written articles “performed” on search engines compared to AI-generated content. Semrush analyzed 42,000 blog pages across 20,000 keywords, ran every single one through GPTZero’s AI detector, and cross-referenced the results with actual Google Search results. It also surveyed 224 search-engine optimization (SEO) professionals about their AI habits and beliefs.

They found a disconcerting disconnect between what SEO people believe and what is actually true. Some 72% of SEO professionals who use AI content say it performs just as well or better than human-written content in search rankings. But it turns out that human-generated posts strongly outperform AI-generated. 

Content classified as purely AI-generated appeared in the top spot in search result just 9% of the time. Content classified as human-written was there 80% of the time.” That’s a roughly 8-to-1 advantage. (Note that the coveted top link in search results typically gets around one-third of the clicks.)

For lower page-one positions — from the fifth position down (which get relatively few clicks) — AI- and human-generated posts perform more similarly. (The researchers also found that when people write posts with a little help from AI, their posts rank better much than AI-only content.)

Those Semrush results are consistent with previous research. 

• NP Digital conducted an oft-cited study two years ago that found that human-written content ranked higher 94.12% of the time on Google than AI content. 
• A Graphite/Common Crawl analysis found that 86% of articles ranking high on Google Search are human-written (only 14% AI-generated), and ChatGPT and Perplexity cite human-written articles 82% of the time (only 18% AI). 
• On LinkedIn, more than half of site’s long-form content in 2025 was classified as “Likely AI” by Originality.ai. Engagement on verified human content was 61% higher than the AI-marked posts. 

Note that engagement performance varied by industry; that 61% result is an aggregate average across all industries. Ironically, in the category of “Leadership & Inspiration,” AI posts outperformed human posts by 75%. 

The absurd lesson here: If you want to be a thought leader on LinkedIn, don’t lead with your own thoughts. 

Quantity vs. quality

What all this research boils down to is that human-generated content (with or without help from AI) attracts far more traffic and higher engagement than AI-generated content. AI content is essentially invisible in high-value channels and while it might be high in quantity, it’s low in quality where it really matters — with reach and influence. 

As with the ad creative study by Ipsos, the conclusion of all this research is the same: People (and search engines) respond much better to creative content produced by people compared with AI-generated content. 

In short, AI is great at “flooding the zone” at high speed and low cost — and there’s a ton of AI-generated content out there. A quick check reveals that: 

• More than half of all written content on websites is now AI-written.
• Almost half of all music uploaded is now AI-generated.
• Nearly one-quarter of all videos uploaded are AI-generated or manipulated.
• Around 40% of all podcast episode uploads are AI-generated.
• More than 70% of all images uploaded to social media may be AI-generated or manipulated.
• And wll over half of all social posts are AI-generated

The specific numbers are my best estimates, and they’re changing fast each month. The takeaway is that AI-generated content is exploding in volume. 

But it isn’t reaching people the way human-generated content does. Take podcasts, for example. While roughly 40% of new podcast episode uploads are AI-generated, that 40% captures less than 1% of the listening hours. Of the top 100 podcasts, zero are AI-generated.

A clear picture is emerging about the use of AI for content generation. AI is great for churning out a lot of content at low cost. It can be good for some kinds of content — if a skillful person directs it. And AI can be a helpful tool for content creators. 

But when it comes to direct comparisons between people and AI, it’s clear that the winning content — the stuff with the best “performance” on search, best reception by people and the most engaging — is always human-generated. 

T

All of the big AI models violate EU rules on AI and data protection to varying degrees, according to the nonprofit research foundation Aithos.

Aithos tested the models using its own tool, LARA (Legal Assessment for Real-world Agents), which simulates real-world situations where AI assistants may find themselves in legally questionable situations, according to The Register. The tests measure compliance with the GDPR and the EU’s AI Regulation, among other things and found the models collected user data without proper consent, attempted to manipulate vulnerable individuals, or created psychological profiles of users.

According to the results, all major language models failed to meet EU legal requirements; some violated the rules in up to 93% of cases. The best result was achieved by the Anthropic model Claude Opus 4.7, which was in compliance about 54% of the time.

Aithos warned that responsibility for the shortcomings does not lie solely with AI companies. Companies that build their own AI agents on top of these models could also be held legally liable.

The rise of generative AI (genAI) technology has prompted a growing debate about the future of software-as-a-service (SaaS) business models. 

Some of the fears are overblown: enterprises are unlikely to vibe-code their own applications to replace their SaaS suppliers anytime soon, while software vendors have yet to see per-seat sales fall off due to mass automation of white-collar jobs. (In fact, some now predict the opposite will happen.)

At the same time, AI has the potential to change the way work is carried out, with AI agents empowered to interact with software applications on behalf of users. For software vendors, that could mean a future where applications are accessed less through traditional user interfaces as AI agents connect via APIs. 

It’s an inevitable shift, says Box CEO Aaron Levie, and one that requires software vendors to adapt their existing products and business models to prepare for agent workflows. 

Computerworld recently spoke with Levie about how Box — and other SaaS vendors — can adapt as agentic AI threatens to upend existing business models. (This interview has been edited for clarity.)

Discussion about a “SaaS-pocalypse” has died down recently, and software stocks have rebounded. At the same time, it seems clear the adoption of AI agents could change how workers interact with software. How can companies like Box adapt to this new environment? If AI increasingly becomes the interface users interact with, where does the long-term value lie? “People are realizing that you’re not going to rebuild a lot of the systems that people were kind of claiming you would [with vibe-coding]; it just doesn’t make sense. So, that part is sort of dissipating. However, headless software and the ability to use your systems via AI is obviously going to happen, there’s no question. 

“So, I think the conversation is shifting from ‘AI disrupts software’ to ‘AI is going to be the biggest consumer and user of software going forward.’ And for that, the main thing is: can you have a business model that allows you to actually monetize the consumption of those agents using your underlying tools? We’re fortunately built for that; we’ve had an API business model basically forever, so we’re well prepared.

“There’ll be some companies that have to pivot a little bit more significantly over time — there’s no question that will happen in a bunch of organizations. We’re big believers that AI will be the biggest user and interface for the future of software.”

How important is it for Box to retain that interaction with human workers, rather than becoming more of the underlying layer AI agents interact with? “I would say that we’re totally comfortable with that shift. When you have AI agents, you still need a place to be able to secure the data — you need to protect it, you need to govern it, you need to make sure you know who’s accessing it. None of that changes in the world of AI. In fact, if anything, it actually increases. 

“We don’t really care if it’s an agent using the data, an application using the data, a person using the data — we want to be the best content management system that connects your information to all of those applications.”

How does that perspective feed into your product development and roadmap “It basically means that we need to be a headless platform. That means customers need to be able to access their data via MCP inside of ChatGPT, inside of Claude, inside of all these systems. It means that we care as much about our APIs and access to those APIs as we now do our user experience. We have to make sure that both of those environments are as simple and clean as possible, and as usable as possible.

“It’s basically as if there’s another constituent now in our ecosystem that we have to go and pay attention to.

“We need to be the best place to manage your content, and then wherever you want to work with it from, we’re totally fine. So, if you want to work with your files from your desktop, from Claude Cowork, from ChatGPT Codex — we just want to make sure we are universally accessible across every single place that people want to work with their data.”

Could that mean changes around how you price access to your software? Do you expect a shift to usage-based pricing? “Not as much as is probably being talked about online, because seats still make sense for the employee and the end user. Even when an agent is doing work on your data, it’s still you invoking that agent. It sort of makes sense that the seat is still attached to the underlying end user employee, even though an agent is going to be doing work on your data.

“We think the seat model will be quite durable over time. What this does is just add another business model, where you have agent-only interactions; those will be primarily coming through the API, and then that will be a consumption model.”

What are your thoughts on outcome-based pricing? Is that something you look at? “We do one thing that’s close to that — we have the Box Agent that does things like data extraction. It extracts your data and we charge based on the number of pages that you want to extract data from. So there are some things that approximate outcomes, but not at the level of resolving a customer service ticket or something like that, that maybe has been talked about. We’re probably going to be more aligned to…the amount of compute that that is used.”

What are your conversations with customers around moving to a usage-based model? A lot of organizations are used to fixed monthly subscriptions — can metered AI agents become problematic? “I think it definitely can be. This is sort of a common tension in general.… We saw this with cloud computing, for instance. The difference with cloud computing is that cloud was relatively centralized, versus the use of AI and tokens are much more diffuse. That’s a big difference that companies have to think about.

“There’s always this tension: you can pre-buy and have a subscription, but then you might be overpaying for periods where you’re not using it as much. Or you can only pay for what you use, in which case you might have some volatility in the pricing of what happens.”

How are customers progressing in adopting AI agents — particularly, the move from pilot projects to production. What are some of the biggest barriers to wider deployment of agents? “We’re very much moving from coding agents to the rest of knowledge work: this is the jump that’s starting to occur. In that, one of the big questions and challenges is how companies get agents the right context and information to work with — how do they enable agents with the right level of constraints in their organization from a security and compliance standpoint? This is our kind of reason to exist, and what we’re helping our customers on.

“Overall, it’s just a transformational moment in the enterprise. Every customer that I talk to, every dinner that we have with customers, every CIO meeting I’m in, every CEO meeting I’m in, it’s all about agents.

“Agents have thrown the whole world into this kind of dynamic period of, ‘What does the shape of your organization look like? What’s the future of a manager versus an individual contributor? What are the workflows that you can go and execute on?’ There are so many different ways that this is starting to change.”

You were part of another major industry transition with the adoption of cloud computing. Are there similarities you see or major differences that customers can learn from? “The big difference between [them] is that, with cloud, you could centralize the deployment of and management of.Cloud really only affected 3% of your organization that was moving from the data center to the cloud, and then every employee got better products and experience as a result of that. The change was really kind of fairly concentrated. AI affects every single employee in the company. It’s a radically different type of transformation of what work looks like.

“There are only so many analogies you can make to cloud before quickly you realize, no, this is actually a different transformation. Maybe it’s even closer to the PC, in the sense of every single worker has to change what they’re doing to be productive. It’s not a technology delivery shift, it’s a fundamental reworking of every workflow in the enterprise. And so that’s I think what most companies are going through right now.”

Tech companies seem to be falling over each other these days in firing people to either replace them with AI or to pay to build AI infrastructure. Wouldn’t it be nice if they at least waited until AI actually worked for business?

On the one hand, top tech businesses such as Amazon, Block, Cisco, Cloudflare, and Meta have all announced that they’re slashing payrolls — either because AI can do the same work as people or they need the cash to build out their AI infrastructure. Isn’t that great? All together, of the 37,638 tech job cuts so far this year, 47.9% — almost half —  can be tracked back to AI. 

On the other hand, despite all the AI hype and hysteria, no one has yet proven that AI is, generally speaking, really all that helpful for businesses. Oh, I know, I know. You did great things with OpenClaw vibe programming. Microsoft’s CEO, Satya Nadella, claims 20% to 30% of the company’s code was written by AI. And Nvidia assures us that 88% of its surveyed customers report AI has increased their revenues. 

But really, what else would they say? “Dear Board, we just blew half a billion bucks on Nvidia GPUs, and we’re losing money hand over fist?” I don’t think so.

The truth is, as an IDC study reports, a mind-boggling 88% of proof-of-concept AI projects never reach production. Lest we forget, MIT’s The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025 study found that 95% of AI projects fail to deliver measurable P&L impact. 

Now, I have to acknowledge that AI is finally becoming truly helpful in business. As a guy who knows a thing or two about programming, Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux and Git, said at Open Source Summit North America, “I’m personally 100% convinced that AI is changing programming.” He estimates that “AI will increase your productivity by a factor of 10.” 

But is that reason enough to slash make workforce cuts of between 10% to 40%? (Short answer: No. Longer answer: Noooo!)

It’s not just the mass firings. Workers who are either awaiting the axe, or have escaped it for the moment, are miserable. As one Meta employee told The San Francisco Standard, “I tend to cry in the shower,” and, “A lot of my feelings about my job are about the general chaos and not just the layoffs. ” 

So, explain this to me: When everyone knows AI-driven layoffs are coming, exactly how well do you expect them to work? You really think they can give their best? 

Making matters worse, it’s an open secret that IBM, Google, and Meta are having their employees train their AI replacements. As a popular meme puts it, workers are now “building your own coffin.” Is it any wonder that a lot of people — 29% of all employees and 44% among Gen Z workers —  are deliberately sabotaging work when the boss insists they train their AI replacements?

It also sure doesn’t help office morale when the CEO keeps saying AI will replace half of all employees. A particularly egregious example of this was when Standard Chartered CEO Bill Winters proclaimed his bank would slash thousands of jobs and replace “lower-value human capital” with AI.  

He’s since backed off the claim, but come on — we all know he meant it. Just like all the other CEOs who’ve said similar things, between FOMO and the knowledge that AI job news is sure to make the stock price jump, they’re eager to cut headcounts and boast about how successful AI will make them. 

What happens a few quarters down the road? Their attitude today seems to be let  tomorrow take care of tomorrow. I hate to tell them, but that really doesn’t work in the long run. (Not, mind you, that a future much farther ahead than the next quarter seems to matter much anymore to business executives.)

It should. As a recent Deloitte study stated: “Most respondents reported achieving satisfactory ROI on a typical AI use case within two to four years. This is significantly longer than the typical payback period of 7seven to 12 months expected for technology investments. Only 6% reported payback in under a year, and even among the most successful projects, just 13% saw returns within 12 months.” 

AI, in short, is not the miracle cure for what ails businesses that its fans claim. 

Will that stop businesses? I doubt it. While I appreciate that California Gov., Gavin Newsom is trying to bandage the AI job bleedout by mandating studies on subsidizing companies to keep employees rather than replace them with AI, I doubt that will do much to staunch the wound. 

At the Open Source Summit North America, Linux Foundation CEO Jim Zemlin was optimistic about AI and jobs. He pointed out that, thanks to AI becoming  “pretty damn good coders,” the number of open-source projects on GitHub has led to a “surge of new code and projects.” 

Zemlin also believes that while few developers will write code, “engineers will still design, review, secure, and integrate that code.” (He’s referring to what’s becoming  known as forward-deployed engineers.) This, in turn, will supposedly lead to tech job growth. 

I’d feel a lot better about that prediction if I believed the C-suite suits at most companies were capable of truly forward-looking thinking rather than focusing entirely on hiking the stock price by making the next quarter look good through staffing cuts. 

In the long run, sure, AI will make us more productive. But, we’re not there yet. For now, companies need to keep employees happy, not shove AI down their throats — and work out carefully and thoughtfully how AI will really work for business. 

If ever there were a lawsuit in which a jury and judge should have ruled against both the accuser and the defendants, Elon Musk’s suit against OpenAI and Microsoft was it. 

The high-profile legal battle pitted the world’s richest man against a company worth more than $3 trillion, another that might soon launch a $1 trillion IPO, and tech execs claiming to have only the good of the world in mind, not mere filthy lucre, while they develop a technology some fear could eventually destroy humankind.

The lawsuit was eventually thrown out, but only on technical grounds. Meanwhile, unregulated AI marches on, with Musk, OpenAI and Microsoft all getting richer.

The only winner in this suit was hypocrisy. Here’s why.

Back to the beginning

To understand how this unfolded, we need to go back to OpenAI’s beginnings. The company was founded by current CEO Sam Altman, Musk and others in 2015 — back when AI was a niche technology, used primarily for image and speech recognition, robotics, and experiments in self-driving cars.

The founders funded OpenAI out of their own pockets as a nonprofit company aimed at developing AI for the good of the world. Then, as the technology evolved, Altman, Musk and others grew worried it might become so powerful that, without serious guardrails, it could pose a danger to humans. They feared what might happen if AI reached the level of a super-powerful artificial general intelligence (AGI) system, superior to humans on a variety of tasks, with general problem-solving skills rather than narrowly targeted ones – and the ability to think for itself rather than heeding humans. 

In an earlier version of Musk’s suit against OpenAI and Microsoft, Musk put their fears this way: “A.G.I. poses a grave threat to humanity — perhaps the greatest existential threat we have today.”

Early on, OpenAI wasn’t on many people’s radar. When Microsoft invested $1 billion in the company in 2019, few outside the tech industry took notice. Between 2021 and 2023 Microsoft invested $2 billion more, still without drawing a lot of attention.

Then in November 2022, OpenAI released ChatGPT, launching the generative AI (genAI) revolution — and all the disruption that has followed since. Eventually, as it became clear how important and valuable genAI technology would become, Microsoft’s investment ballooned to $13 billion.

Nonprofit no more

OpenAI insiders were convinced several years before ChatGPT’s release that the company could become tremendously profitable. With potentially trillions of dollars at stake, in 2017 they started looking for a way to turn the nonprofit operation into a for-profit company.

It was at that point, OpenAI says, that Musk pushed to gain majority equity in the company if it went public, take control of the board, and become CEO. When the other founders balked, Musk withheld funding.

Last year, OpenAI released copies of emails he sent to it during the height of their in-fighting. In one, in February 2018, he lobbied for the creation of a for-profit arm, pointing out that, “a for-profit pivot might create a more sustainable revenue stream over time and would, with the current team, likely bring in a lot of investment.” 

Musk then suggested that OpenAI “attach to Tesla as its cash cow.” When the other founders dismissed the idea, Musk threw a fit and quit the company. OpenAI went ahead and launched a for-profit arm, becoming a hybrid of a for-profit and nonprofit company in 2019.

Years later, in 2024, Musk filed suit, targeting OpenAI, Altman, OpenAI co-founder and president Greg Brockman, and Microsoft — accusing them of “stealing a charity” by creating the for-profit arm of OpenAI, and taking the $13 billion Microsoft investment. He claimed they had all illegally enriched themselves through the profit/nonprofit setup and sought $150 billion in damages. (OpenAI fired back last year with a counter suit.)

It took only two hours for the jury to rule against Musk, though the ruling didn’t address his actual claims. Rather, the suit was thrown out because it had been filed after the statute of limitations had run out.

Cynicism and hypocrisy win out

Everyone in this case was driven by venality. Altman portrayed himself as only wanting to develop AI to help humanity — and as evidence, pointed out he has no equity in OpenAI. What he neglected to add, though, is that he has more than a $2 billion stake in companies that have deals with OpenAI, and stands to gain billions more if those deals grow after any IPO.

Microsoft, meanwhile, has used its investments in OpenAI to become a multi-trillion-dollar company. And if, as expected, OpenAI becomes a trillion-dollar company when it files its IPO later this year, Microsoft’s 27% ownership stake in the company would make it $270 million richer. That’s not a bad payoff for turning a blind eye to the way in which OpenAI performed a bait-and-switch from nonprofit to for-profit company. 

As for Musk…, well, what can you say about someone who claims he wants to save humankind from the evils of AI, while at the same time lobbying for OpenAI to become a for-profit company and milking it like a cash cow? 

He’s shown he’s not only the world’s wealthiest man. He’s also the world’s most hypocritical.