The Human Stamp of Approval

A stranger on the internet gives us a book recommendation and we consider it. ChatGPT suggests the same book and we’re far more likely to hesitate.

Both sources are distant, yet one feels personal, and the other seems artificial.

Maybe it’s because we assume a human has lived experience. They’ve read the book, wrestled with its ideas, and formed an opinion.

AI, on the other hand, doesn’t feel anything. It doesn’t have taste, judgment, or a real point of view. It just predicts what should come next in a sentence. And we resist taking advice from something that isn’t capable of caring.

It’s why companies go to great lengths to make AI-generated content sound human. Why chatbots use casual language. Why AI voices are trained to add imperfections. Because we don’t just want good advice, we want it to feel like it came from someone who understands us.

Right now, people are patrolling the social media feeds looking for telltale signs of AI content. They’re looking for the em dash, the Oxford comma, or strings of words that ChatGPT loves, like "Let’s dive in!"

The moment content loses its human fingerprints, it loses its value.

AI is a multiplier of effort, not a replacement for humanity.

The winners will be those who use technology to amplify their humanity, not simulate it.