AI & Authenticity—What Does It Mean to Be "Real" in 2025?

‍Insights from our second CO.LAB session

Recently, we hosted the second session of CO.LAB, KUNGFU.AI’s futures-oriented co-design series where we explore the evolving relationship between humans and AI. This session built on the discussion in our first session on reclaiming attention, and tackled a fundamental question:

How do we define authenticity when AI blurs the boundaries between genuine self-expression and AI-enhanced communication?

Rather than viewing AI’s role in self-expression through a rigid lens of risks and benefits, CO.LAB reframes these conversations as design challenges. Instead of passively accepting what might happen, we ask: What do we want to happen? Here’s a recap of the key insights and takeaways from our discussion, which took us on a meandering path and raised some unexpected questions.

The Importance of Authenticity

In a world where 88% of consumers say authenticity is important when deciding which brands to support, and more authentic workplaces lead to better productivity and retention, how does AI's growing role in our lives—and specifically, our communications—change what "authentic" means? We began our session by examining two case studies that illuminate the evolving nature of authenticity:

Case 1: Optimizing for Engagement‍

Hinge recently introduced an AI-driven prompt coach, aimed at helping the “more than half (63%) of daters on the app [who] expressed challenges in knowing what to include on their profile” (Hinge). This could be a particularly potent use case given that “likes on text prompts were 47% more likely to lead to a date than likes on photos” (Hinge). Interestingly, the chatbot only provides three, seemingly simple, responses: “Great Answer”, “Try a Small Change” and “Go a Little Deeper” (Hinge). While little data on the effectiveness of this feature exists, reporting by Rachel Cohn of the New York Times and the Hardfork team suggests a counterintuitive narrative: the prompt coach tends to push users to include more detail than they otherwise would and although this makes responses sound a bit canned or strange, modified responses tend to generate more likes.

Participants in our session questioned whether higher engagement reflected genuine human preference or algorithmic amplification. One participant succinctly captured this ambiguity: "Did people engage more because the algorithm served optimized content more aggressively, or did users genuinely find these AI-tweaked profiles more compelling?" While these enhancements improve engagement metrics, they also raise questions about whether AI-assisted self-presentation aligns with traditional notions of authenticity. Is having an AI intermediary between you and a potential romantic match any less authentic than, say, meeting someone in a bar? What about compared to the more common alternative: Matching with someone on a dating app, which is, itself, already an experience mediated by an algorithm? Does authenticity even matter if the process results in ‘better’ outcomes?  We continue to use AI to augment exploration and self-expression, and while it seems to be helping us comb through ever bigger pools of ‘data,’ one must ask whether that comes at a cost.

Case 2: The Birthday Card Dilemma

We discussed another case study that was covered on the Search Engine Podcast by Emily Weinstein and Beck Tench from the Center for Digital Thriving. During one of their recent listening sessions with teenagers, a participant shared a story of his father’s friend who used ChatGPT to write a birthday card for his wife—which she loved more than any card he'd written himself. The teen related the story that this was great as the husband made his wife so happy. Some of his peers in the group agreed. What’s the problem with this, they seemed to suggest. When Emily explained that she finds this to be ethically fraught, one of the teens pushed back: “If your husband wrote a card with AI, he’s still trying to do something nice for you. And isn’t the intention what matters? Like, If he brings you flowers from a flower store, he didn’t grow the flowers or pick them. And you still think it’s really nice. So, isn’t that kind of like what’s happening here?”

This reporting was backed up by an anecdote from our session: A participant’s grandmother recently received a birthday card from one granddaughter, only to later receive nearly identical cards—all seemingly AI-generated—from some of her other grandchildren. Not only did this diminish the value of the subsequent cards, but it retroactively undermined the first's authenticity, leaving the grandmother feeling deceived.

Both anecdotes reveal a generational divide in how we perceive authenticity. Younger generations often prioritize intention and emotional impact over the origin of words, viewing AI as simply another communication tool—no different than spell-check. Meanwhile, older generations may see AI assistance as a form of delegation or even deception.

If some of us believe authenticity resides in genuine intention rather than production process, while others fundamentally disagree, this authenticity gap creates friction wherever personal connection matters. Perhaps writing itself is bifurcating into two categories: utilitarian communication (where AI assistance is accepted) and personal expression (where human originality remains valued). For example, if a Gen Z employee uses AI to draft a heartfelt email thanking a Gen X mentor for their time, is this a case of efficient authenticity or inauthentic laziness? 

The Multi-Dimensional Nature of Authenticity

Our discussion revealed that authenticity isn't binary but involves several dimensions that interact in complex ways:

1. Intent and Emotional Investment

"Authenticity requires accessing your own emotions," suggested one participant. Using AI to avoid emotional labor undermines authenticity, while using it to better express genuine feelings might enhance it. What makes communication authentic isn't the tool but the emotional investment behind it.

Another participant framed this in terms of intent: "If your actions for being authentic follow your heart, then that equals authenticity." The question isn't whether AI was involved, but whether it helped or hindered the expression of genuine feeling.

2. Effort and Value Perception

As one participant observed, "What humans value changes over time. And part of the way that it changes is based on what's perceived as high effort versus low effort."

This draws interesting parallels to historical reactions to technologies like calculators, spreadsheets, and auto-tune in music. Initially viewed with skepticism as "cheating," they eventually found acceptance as tools for authentic creation. As one participant pointed out, "T-Pain can actually sing really well. He used autotune deliberately as an artist... and then became sort of the poster child for 'oh you're relying on [technology]', and he's perceived as not [authentic]."

These examples suggest AI might follow a similar trajectory—from being seen initially as a threatening and illegitimate shortcut to being recognized as a legitimate creative tool.

3. Consent and Disclosure

Transparency emerged as perhaps the most crucial component of authenticity in an AI-mediated world. "It's essentially an issue of consent and disclosure," noted one participant when discussing AI-generated content. Are you "portraying that this is a high-effort thing you did in a low-effort way or a very personal thing that you did in a very tool-based way?"

Similarly, another participant emphasized that knowing how something was created significantly changes their perception of it: "I don't like being deceived... if a movie at the end credits says no generative AI used or has some generative AI disclosure—that's a big distinction for me."

This connects to broader societal concerns about AI-generated content. While research in this area is still emerging, the consensus among our participants echoed recent findings that transparency is increasingly vital in how people evaluate AI-generated content—many want to know when they're interacting with something created or enhanced by AI.

4. Context and Medium

What's considered authentic varies dramatically by context and medium. As one participant noted, "When we're thinking about relationships or just some interaction where you really expect it to be full of effort and very meaningful, I feel like authenticity is very important."

The expectations around different mediums also affect our perception. For creative fields like comedy or art, participants acknowledged different standards: "I go and see comedy and for all I know some of it could be from ChatGPT, but the way that they deliver it makes a room laugh." It isn’t just the origin of content that matters—the packaging and delivery of that content can also affect how we perceive its authenticity.

AI as a Collaborator

Beyond these dimensions, several participants suggested that authentic AI use might be found in collaborative relationships where humans retain the critical role:

"I always use [AI] with an approach of a critic in mind," shared one participant. "I see ChatGPT as consulting…almost like a group of people giving me ideas of what they think of my idea. And I just always eye everything that I get back from it with a critical eye."

This approach positions AI not as a replacement for human expression but as a tool that requires human judgment, editing, and ultimate responsibility—what researchers have called "augmented intelligence" rather than artificial intelligence. The authenticity emerges not from avoiding AI but from how critically and thoughtfully we engage with its outputs.

The Connection to Attention

Our discussion revealed striking parallels to our previous CO.LAB session on attention. As one participant observed, "AI and how it relates to authenticity is very tied into our discussion from last week about attention because I think a lot of the way these tools are designed, social media platforms are designed...they're designed to eat up our time and attention and suck us in."

This creates a troubling cycle: the same systems optimized to capture our attention may simultaneously diminish our capacity for authentic expression. "In doing that, I think we've lost a lot of space for true authenticity and creativity because it's all about optimization and efficiency now."

Can AI Enhance Authenticity?

While much of our discussion centered on AI's potential to diminish authenticity, perhaps the most provocative question emerged toward the end: Could AI actually enhance authenticity in certain contexts? This flips the conventional narrative and asks whether our binary thinking about technology and authenticity might itself be limiting.

Our participants identified several compelling possibilities that suggest AI could serve not just as a substitute for human expression, but as a catalyst for deeper, more authentic connection:

1. Augmenting Memory

Human memory is notoriously fallible—we forget birthdays, preferences, and meaningful details about the people we care about, not because we don't care, but because our cognitive architecture has limitations. As one participant suggested, "If I was reminded about someone's birthday or the fact that they like something that I sent two years ago and they reacted well to it... then I can tap into my authenticity and do something that's very thoughtful."

This points to a more nuanced understanding of authenticity—perhaps it resides not just in spontaneous expression, but in the consistency of care across time. AI that helps us maintain this consistency by augmenting our emotional memory doesn't replace authentic connection but rather creates the conditions for it to flourish more consistently.

2. Democratizing Self-Expression

One participant notes that for people who struggle with certain forms of communication—whether due to neurodiversity, language barriers, or disability—AI tools can serve as bridges to authentic expression rather than barriers.

This insight challenges us to consider whether our cultural notions of authenticity might themselves be exclusionary. If authenticity means expressing one's true self, then tools that enable more people to do so shouldn't be viewed as diminishing authenticity but expanding access to it. In this light, AI becomes a democratizing force—allowing more voices to be heard and more perspectives to be shared in their fullest form.

3. Breaking Echo Chambers

One of the most intriguing potentials of AI lies in its ability to introduce us to perspectives we might otherwise miss—not because they don't exist, but because our attention is finite and our social networks are limited. One participant described using AI to gather diverse viewpoints: "I read a book and was very curious about what others had to say about it, but finding opinions was kind of difficult. So I asked [AI] to feed me back the main points people had made, and it actually did expose me very quickly to new ideas."

This suggests that AI could serve as a counterforce to the digital echo chambers that increasingly shape our worldviews—but only if we proactively use it for this purpose. However, using AI to diversify our exposure to content requires significantly more conscious effort than the passive consumption of algorithmically-curated content that so often entrenches us in echo chambers. It demands that we ask the right questions, remain open to challenging perspectives, and critically evaluate the synthesized information we receive. Because of this, it is difficult to scale.

However, for people who use AI to intentionally expose themselves to a broader range of perspectives, AI could help them develop more nuanced, authentic viewpoints that incorporate rather than ignore differing opinions—potentially deepening rather than flattening their authentic engagement with important issues.

4. Refining Rather Than Replacing Voice

Perhaps most counterintuitively, AI might help us better express our authentic selves by serving as a reflective tool rather than a replacement. "I can get into long-winded rants sometimes and I lose people when I'm trying to be authentic," one participant admitted. "It serves almost like a pre-processing filter for me."

This frames AI not as a ghostwriter but as a mirror—helping us see our own thoughts more clearly and express them more effectively. This is similar to but distinct from Hinge's AI coach, which (presumably) optimizes profiles for engagement rather than authentic self-expression.

In this instance, just as a trusted editor helps writers refine their authentic voice rather than imposing a different one, AI might help us distill our genuine perspectives into forms that better resonate with others.

Taken together, these possibilities suggest a more expansive understanding of authenticity—one that acknowledges the role tools have always played in human self-expression. From the invention of writing to the printing press to social media, technologies have constantly reshaped how we express ourselves. The question isn't whether to use tools in authentic expression, but how to use them in ways that amplify rather than dilute our humanity.

Designing for an Authentic Future

As AI becomes increasingly embedded in our communication patterns, we face a critical inflection point. Will we allow these technologies to erode authentic connection, or can we harness them to deepen human expression?

Our CO.LAB discussion revealed that this isn't merely a technological question but a design challenge that requires intentional choices guided by human values. Four key design principles emerged that could transform AI from a potential threat to authenticity into a catalyst for more genuine connection:

1. Transparency by Design, Not Afterthought

Rather than treating disclosure as a regulatory requirement or ethical checkbox, truly authentic AI systems should integrate transparency into their core functionality. This means moving beyond simple labels ("AI-generated") to contextual transparency that helps users understand not just that AI was involved, but how it shaped the final output.

For example, imagine communication tools that visualize the degree of AI influence on different parts of a message, or platforms that allow recipients to "toggle" between AI-assisted and original versions—empowering informed choices about how to interpret and respond to mediated communication.

2. Intent Amplification, Not Automation

The most promising AI tools for authentic communication don't aim to generate content for us, but to amplify our genuine intentions. These systems would function less like ghostwriters and more like communication coaches—asking clarifying questions, suggesting ways to better express complex emotions, and helping us align our messages with our true purposes.

This principle requires AI development focused not on the fastest way to generate passable content, but on the most effective ways to understand and enhance what humans genuinely want to express.

3. Cognitive Diversity as Core Infrastructure

Our current digital communication systems often implicitly favor particular cognitive styles. The next frontier in authentic AI systems will involve building tools that recognize and support diverse thinking patterns—from linear to associative, from verbal to visual, from analytical to intuitive.

This means reimagining AI assistants not as one-size-fits-all solutions, but as adaptable interfaces that can meet users where they are cognitively, helping each person communicate in ways that feel genuinely authentic to their thought processes.

4. Collaborative Creation, Not Automated Production

Our current paradigm often positions AI as a service—input a prompt, receive an output. This transactional model reduces authenticity by distancing us from the creative process.

The fundamental insight from our case studies is that authenticity emerges from engagement with the creative process, not just from the origin of the final product. Whether in dating profiles or birthday cards, the issue wasn't AI involvement itself, but how these systems positioned humans as consumers of AI outputs rather than partners in creation.

Some recent advances are already moving us in promising directions. Voice-based AI interfaces, for instance, enable more natural, conversational interactions that feel like partnerships rather than transactions with a black box. These interfaces allow for real-time refinement and clarification—closer to authentic human collaboration.

However, other developments like autonomous AI agents that operate independently on our behalf may further alienate us from authentic expression, depending on how they're implemented. The challenge isn't technological capability but intentional design choices.

At KUNGFU.AI, we reject technological determinism and focus instead on how we shape the relationship between humans and AI. The authenticity crisis isn't about AI versus humans, but about designing systems that enhance rather than bypass meaningful human engagement.

Beyond Today: Questions That Will Shape Tomorrow

Our CO.LAB session concluded not with definitive answers but with provocative questions that will shape the future of authenticity in an AI-mediated world:

• How will our cultural understanding of authenticity evolve as AI becomes more deeply integrated into creative and communicative processes?
• What new social norms and signals might emerge to help us navigate the complex spectrum between fully human and AI-assisted expression?
• How might we design AI systems that enhance authentic human connection across generational, cultural, and cognitive differences?
• What responsibility do technologists have in shaping tools that respect and enhance authenticity rather than undermining it?

We'll continue exploring these questions in future CO.LAB sessions, examining how intentional design choices can help us harness AI's potential while preserving what makes us distinctly human.

If you're interested in how AI can support more authentic experiences, please reach out to me at ben.szuhaj@kungfu.ai.

I would also like to note that the dialogue represented from the CO.LAB discussion in this piece has been edited for clarity and brevity. Additionally, in the spirit of this piece, I would like to explicitly acknowledge the use of AI in my creative process—from helping to transcribe the session to providing support during my writing process.

‍