As marketers, we have seen trends ebb and flow between extremes for decades. One day, we were wearing the skeleton skinny jeans, but then we swapped them for baggy wide-leg jeans. Using concealer as our lipstick before overlining with the Kylie Lip Kit. Looking for curves through a Brazilian butt lift before rushing to begin GLP-1 injections to get rid of any and all extra fat. Once a beauty standard becomes accessible to the general public, it is on to the next, least attainable extreme.
We’re seeing the start of yet another trend: the ripple effects of widespread GLP-1 use, including the potential muscle loss that can come with it. Protein chips, protein coffee, and even protein waffles are marketed to children. Weight rooms are busier than ever, and it seems like everyone has a weighted vest. Is strong becoming the new skinny?
While your daily LLM use has nothing to do with how you look, these trend cycles may help us anticipate what's next and adjust our habits to stay strong (literally) and avoid getting swept up in the AI storm.
Why are marketers adopting GenAI so quickly?
Right now, time is our most valuable commodity. We want to make everything as easy and fast as possible to get the most done in the least amount of time and with the fewest resources. The introduction of GenAI has perfectly filled this need.
Even Google Search, which once felt instantaneous compared to filtering through a library system, has become too time-consuming. Why spend two minutes clicking a link to an external website when the AI summary will give you an answer at the top of your webpage in 10 seconds? Even those who go out of their way to avoid intentional AI use and do not use AI chatbots for daily tasks are still being fed AI outputs or prompted to message an AI agent to complete an online return.
But at what cost — besides millions of liters of fresh water each day?
What marketers risk losing when AI does too much of the work
The American Psychological Association recently published a study involving 1,923 participants aged 25 to 57 in the U.S. and Canada who reported one year of regular weekly use of GenAI tools for complex tasks. The participants were measured for prompt dependence, override behavior, time-to-decision and edits to final output.
“Rather than supporting narratives of cognitive harm, the findings emphasize the role of interaction style in shaping perceived autonomy and confidence,” stated the report.
“Across a large adult sample, participants reported substantial reliance on generative systems, frequent prompt engagement, and relatively low rates of modification of AI-generated output. Greater acceptance of AI suggestions with minimal revision was associated with lower self-reported confidence in independent reasoning, whereas higher levels of active modification were associated with greater confidence.”
While AI use may not cause cognitive decline, what happens in a world where individuals feel no sense of authorship over the content they share with the world? If LLMs are generating responses based entirely on content it produced itself, how can it learn — and who will step up to contradict it?
Looking toward the future of GenAI
Just like peptides, AI isn’t going anywhere. If we keel over and blindly accept AI output, content will become generic, and thought leaders will lose ownership of ideas and their confidence. After widespread adoption occurs, we will find ourselves fighting to find unique and genuine content once again.
How many times have our parents told us — or, lately, we've told our parents — “Just because it’s online doesn’t mean it’s true.” Continuing to question GenAI outputs and pushing ourselves to use restraint and think critically before relying on our AI coworkers will be key to finding balance in a world where we can coexist with this new intelligence.
Quiz
Your Competitive Edge, Delivered