What the ‘Rebellion’ Against AI Means for Corporate Communications

In the 2002 movie “Catch Me If You Can,” FBI Assistant Director John Marsh is considering letting con man and convicted check forger Frank Abagnale Jr. serve the rest of his 12-year sentence by working for the FBI’s financial crimes unit.

Before he does, Marsh, played by character actor John Finn, hands a check to Abagnale, played by Leonardo DiCaprio.  Looking on is Agent Carl Hanratty, who’s been chasing Abagnale for years and is played by Tom Hanks.

“I’d like you to take a look at something,” Marsh says gruffly. “Tell me what you think.”

“It’s a fake,” Abagnale says immediately.

“How do you know, you haven’t looked at it?” Marsh asks, and Abagnale says it’s how the paper feels.

Sometimes that’s what it’s like with content generated by artificial intelligence. You know right away.

This month, we urged corporate communicators that they’re better than generative AI programs at reaching their audiences. Use AI for what it does best, like data analysis.

Recent surveys and research support our view. Our concern is summed up by a headline last week in The Wall Street Journal: “The American Rebellion Against AI Is Gaining Steam.”

Several factors are fueling the intense feelings. A long string of high-profile layoffs that CEOs have attributed to AI have inflamed fears about job losses. Concerns about chatbots’ effect on mental health have been highlighted by well-publicized suicides. And climbing electricity prices have sparked opposition across the country to data centers.

One factor in the surging negative attitude should be a big worry for corporate communication teams.

“Those detecting greater AI use are also less likely to favor, engage with, and learn from the article,” according to a study released in May by the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas. “The more AI people detected, the less favorably they felt about the article, the lower their intentions to engage with it, and the lower their score on a quiz of what they learned from the article.”

Yet many communications executives, enthralled by the promised cost-savings of the new technology, are slow to recognize the change in opinion. There are plenty of signs.

‘More harm than good’
Fifty-five percent of Americans think AI will do more harm than good in their day-to-day lives, compared to 44 percent in 2025, according to a survey by Quinnipiac University. The national survey of nearly 1,400 people was conducted in March 2026.

The survey found that AI usage has grown since last year. Among those surveyed, 51% use AI for research, and many also use it for writing (28%) and data analysis (27%). But only 21 percent trust AI-generated information either most of the time or almost all of the time.

In the news release announcing the survey results, Chetan Jaiswal, a professor in computing at the university, said, “The contradiction between use and trust of AI is striking. … Americans are clearly adopting AI, but they are doing so with deep hesitation, not deep trust.”

‘Trust penalty’
In light of the deep distrust, there’s a temptation not to tell audiences when AI is used. There’s a high price to getting caught, according a survey issued in April by market research firm YouGov and media monitoring company Meltwater.

More than 60% of Americans said it would reduce their trust in a brand if it did not disclose that AI was used in content creation, the survey found. The global survey included at least 1,050 people in the U.S.

“The use of generative AI in brand content may currently carry a net trust penalty for organizations,” the report concludes.

Labels on stories disclosing the use of AI are easily missed, according to the University of Texas study. In the study, researchers asked 1,007 people to read a set of articles. Some of the stories were written by journalists and some were generated by AI and checked by editors.

While some surveys have found that people are confident about spotting AI, they may be overconfident.

“Audiences perceive that journalists use AI, even when they do not,” the researchers found.

Deeper problem
Audience objections about AI-generated content go beyond the chatbots’ annoying and well-documented writing tics.

The market research firm Ipsos put 20 ads (half human-created, half AI-generated) in front of 3,000 U.S. consumers, according to a  study released in May.

Participants said “human-produced ads are more entertaining, more unique, and more talkable,” according to the report. Meanwhile, “consumers find AI advertising less creative, less emotionally engaging, and less informative.”

Why’s that?

“AI draws from what already exists,” the report concludes. “It can replicate the conventions of advertising, but it struggles to transcend them. The top-performing human ads don’t follow the script — they break it.”

People are more likely to say that AI-generated content is “fake” and soulless” than “creative or “innovative,” according to a survey in March by market research firm Ipsos.

That’s a change since 2023, when the positive terms dominated. The survey of more than 1,000 people was part of the company’s biweekly Consumer Tracker poll.

A divide
Like many topics in American society, elites and everyday people are divided on artificial intelligence. About 56% of AI experts think artificial intelligence will have a very or somewhat positive impact on the U.S. over the next 20 years, compared with just 17% of the general public, according to a 2024 survey the Pew Research Center.

Another 2024 survey by researchers at the Rutgers University–New Brunswick found that trust in AI was highest among people earning $100,000 or more a year (62%) and holding graduate degree holders (60%), as well as between age 18 to 24 (60%). Just 47% of all those surveyed trust the technology. This gap has likely widened.

Content generated by AI is eroding the trust of employees and consumers that’s already in short supply. Taken together, the surveys should persuade corporate communicators to keep faith in their ability to connect with people.

“The public is aware of a ‘trade-off’ when it comes to generative AI’s use for content creation,” the YouGov-Meltwater report said. “On one hand, the technology has the potential to make content creation faster, more accessible and more efficient. On the other hand, there are concerns about the risks it introduces ― from misinformation and deception to the erosion of authenticity and human creativity.”

It’s a trade that a growing number of people don’t want to make.

Tom Corfman, a senior consultant with Ragan Consulting Group, wonders what the world be like if basketball Hall of Famer Allen Iverson had trademarked his initials. Want to learn more about out Build Better Writers program of workshops and one-on-one coaching and editing? Email Tom to set up a free call with him and RCG co-founder and senior partner Jim Ylisela.

Follow RCG on LinkedIn and subscribe to our weekly newsletter here.