Authenticity & Thought Leadership in the Age of AI
Chris Do explains why AI is not a threat to authentic creators, but a tool that amplifies taste, curiosity, and critical thinking.
Chris Do
Founder, The Futur™ · April 10, 2024
The Milli Vanilli Effect
There is a growing fear that AI will expose you. Not as a luddite, but as a fraud.
It’s a modern anxiety with a retro soundtrack. In a conversation with Alistair McDermot, Chris Do calls this the Milli Vanilli effect. The term references the infamous late-80s pop duo who were stripped of their Grammy after it was revealed they didn't sing a single note on their album. They were the face, not the voice.
“You're just the front person, you really didn't do any of this, and you're taking all the credit,” Do explains. “That's problematic.”
This is the core tension for any creator today. You publish a brilliant, 300-page report generated almost entirely by a machine. It sounds perfect. It looks perfect. Then you are invited to speak, and you can barely string three coherent sentences together.
The mask comes off. The music stops.
This risk is amplified by the dilution of terms like “thought leader.” A phrase once reserved for intellectuals and culture-movers who dedicated their lives to research and reflection is now applied loosely to anyone with a following. Do points to author Seth Godin, who has written over 20 books and a daily blog for more than a decade, as the old-school standard. Godin is someone “contemplating, reflecting, observing life, and packaging it in bite-sized pieces of information for you to consume.”
The modern internet version is often just someone who creates videos online. While influence is real, the depth of thought can be shallow. AI tempts us to make it even shallower, to prioritize the output over the process.
The problem is not the tool. It's the intent. If you use AI to pretend you are something you are not, you are building a brand on a foundation of sand. You will refuse the speaking gigs. You will avoid the live Q&A. You will live in fear of being exposed.
Authenticity, Do argues, is the only long-term defense. It is not about refusing to use new tools. It is about ensuring the ideas, the core message, and the final judgment remain fundamentally yours.
Everything is a Remix, Even You
The panic over AI and originality ignores a fundamental truth about creativity: nothing comes from nowhere.
Your ideas are a reflection of your life experiences. They are a composite of your mentors, rivals, parents, and friends. They are shaped by the books you have read, the films you have watched, and the art you have consumed.
“You're regurgitating that, reprocessing it,” Do says. He references Kirby Ferguson’s seminal documentary series, Everything is a Remix, which argues that all creative work builds upon what came before through the processes of copying, transforming, and combining.
The issue is not borrowing. The issue is attribution and obviousness.
Do recalls the infamous lawsuit against Vanilla Ice for his song “Ice Ice Baby,” which used the bassline from Queen and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure.” The defense that it was “totally different” fell apart because the melody was too clear, the source too recognizable. “It's when we recognize the notes and the harmonies and the melodies too clearly that we're like, wait a minute,” Do notes.
This is the same challenge creators have always faced, long before AI. In academic writing, you cite sources in footnotes. In modern writing, you reference works and authors in the text. In conversation, it gets more difficult. Do admits he wrestles with this when preparing keynotes.
- “I know most if not all the ideas that I'm sharing come from some other source.”
- “I'm not conducting the field studies.”
- “I'm not doing the deep analytical dives using data that I'm crunching.”
- “Most of us do not do that. So we're citing other people who've cited other people.”
What, then, is authorship? Do suggests it is the curation and assembly of existing ideas. “The only thing I can claim is that I've assembled in a very specific sequence. I didn't play the instruments, I didn't write the notes, but I'm assembling in a certain way. And I think it's okay.”
If we accept this model for human creativity, then AI simply becomes another source. It is referencing its own source material. The ethical obligation is to direct it to cite those sources and to be transparent about your role in the process. Your contribution is no longer just the writing; it is the direction, the refinement, and the synthesis of what the machine produces. The human is the editor, the curator, the artist in charge. This is a framework for thinking that Do explores often, including in his sessions on how to build content people actually react to.
The Line Between Tool and Crutch
The question of credit is where the debate gets tangled. We do not credit Microsoft Word for its grammar checker, a feature it has had since 1997. We do not credit Grammarly for restructuring our sentences. We do not credit Adobe Photoshop for its AI-powered masking tools.
“We don't do that because it just becomes part of accepted workflow when we see utility,” Do argues.
The difference lies in the ratio of human input to machine output. With a grammar checker, the human provides 98% of the input, and the machine provides 2% of the output. The core ideas and structure are yours. The machine is simply polishing according to established rules.
The problem arises when that ratio flips.
“Some kid who doesn't even know how to write, who doesn't have an idea, can say, ‘Oh, write a story about X,’” Do explains. “So the input is like 0.1% and the output is 99.9%. And then to say ‘written by Joe Smith’... problematic here.”
This is the distinction between a tool and a crutch. A tool enhances your existing skill. A crutch replaces it. If you use AI because you are unwilling to learn a skill, you are not growing. The product may improve, but the creator stagnates.
Do delivers the core principle with a sharp analogy. “You can't hire people to do push-ups for you.”
You can hire a ghostwriter to write your book, a practice common in sports and business. You can use an app to dictate your thoughts on a long drive and have AI turn it into a blog post. But where is the line?
For Do, it comes down to personal integrity. “The best thing that we can all do is to make sure we're checking in with our values so that we don't have the guilt or shame of saying, ‘Yeah, I did something I did not do.’”
The cultural norms are still shifting. Just as Auto-Tune went from a secret pitch-correction tool frowned upon by purists to a trendy, stylistic effect embraced by top artists, our perception of AI will evolve. Some will refuse it. Others will build their entire aesthetic around its synthetic quality. The key is to make a conscious choice, one that aligns with your brand and your principles, a topic Do has covered in depth when discussing how to stop building a fake personal brand.
“Each person gets to decide what that really means,” Do concludes. It is your brand because you chose it.
The Art of the Prompt
So, how should a creator actually use AI? Do admits he is not using it enough but sees its power as a partner in collaboration.
He wants to spend his time on high-level strategic thinking. “What's going to communicate the message of this thumbnail? What's going to communicate the idea that there's urgency behind this offer? That's what I want to work on.” Everything else, he says, is production work he wants AI to handle.
His current workflow includes several distinct applications:
- Image Generation and Editing: Using tools like Adobe Firefly’s Generative Fill to expand backgrounds or fix assets. Instead of spending hours on tedious retouching, he can focus on the core concept.
- Creative Brainstorming: Using AI as a sounding board. For example, he might ask it: “What are commonly accepted symbols or analogs to the idea of wealth or value that might be relevant to people who have a high school level education in America?” This provides a starting point for visual concepts beyond the obvious clichés.
- Content Repurposing: Summarizing long video files. Instead of re-watching a two-hour recording, he asks an AI to transcribe it and identify the most salient points. This helps him quickly generate titles, descriptions, and promotional clips.
The true skill, however, is not in the asking. It is in the anlaysis and the direction. You have to discern good answers from bad ones. You have to use taste and judgment. This is where AI literacy becomes a critical competency. It’s not just about using the tool; it’s about knowing how to guide it.
Do stresses the importance of high-quality input. “Garbage in, at least for now, garbage out,” he states. A vague prompt like “make something great” will yield a generic result. A specific prompt changes the game.
He provides an example: “Make something that appeals to children, boys and girls between the age of seven and eleven, who are interested in fairy tales and have some kind of rebirth concept in it. With these kinds of parameters, write it this way, make sure it rhymes, and make it into a 16-page book that can be friendly for illustration.”
That is not a lazy request. That is art direction. The ability to give clear, persuasive, and detailed instructions is the skill that separates a novice from an expert AI user, an idea central to effective communication in any field, including the art of asking better questions.
Thinking is writing, and writing is thinking. The better you can articulate your ideas to a human, the better you can articulate them to a machine.
It's Not Copying, It's Deconstruction
One of the biggest obstacles for artists adopting AI is the belief that image generation models are engaging in digital plagiarism, stitching together a collage of stolen art. The reality, Do explains, is far more complex and interesting.
He compares it to the “clean room” reverse-engineering process used in the 1990s by companies like AMD to create computer chips compatible with Intel’s without violating patents. They would have one team analyze the Intel chip and describe its function to a second team in a separate room. This second team, who had never seen the original chip, would then build a new one based only on the description. They were replicating the functionality, not copying the design.
AI image generation works on a similar principle of abstraction. Through a process called diffusion, it does the following:
- It takes source images and blurs them into unrecognizable noise.
- It then trains itself to find patterns in that noise, guessing what it might represent: an eye, a face, a tree.
- It refines this process over and over, learning the concept of a thing, not memorizing a specific instance of it.
“The AI itself has not seen this thing,” Do explains. “It's being described this thing by another party and it's feeding itself.” This is why early AI struggled with hands and text; when blurred into noise, they are indistinct blobs with no clear conceptual pattern.
This process of democratization through technology is not new. Do reminds his audience of a time before the Canon 5D Mark II, a DSLR camera that revolutionized independent film by making high-quality, shallow-depth-of-field video accessible. Before that, achieving a cinematic look required renting expensive 35mm film cameras and dealing with a costly development process. When the tools were democratized, a lot of bad films were made. But great artists also got their hands on tools they could never have afforded before, and the entire industry changed.
“You having digital tools doesn't make you an artist,” Do insists. “It's the artist that makes the art, not the art or not the brush or the canvas.”
His point is clear: we are too focused on the tool and not on the art. The real work is in the vision, the message, and the ability to connect disparate ideas. AI is just a production method. If you love the physical production of painting or letterpress, keep doing it. There will always be a market for artisanal craft. But for those whose work is image-making and idea-spreading, complaining about the new tools will change nothing.
The Advantage of the True Creative
If the tools are democratized and available to everyone from an accountant to a lawyer, how does a professional creative compete? This is the central fear for many artists.
Do’s response is a direct challenge: “If you can't use the same tools that they can use and the non-creatives are creating better art than you, I think we have a real problem here.”
The solution is not to cling to old tools. It is to raise the bar. The true differentiator is not your technical skill with a particular software but the very things a machine cannot replicate. These are the human skills that become more valuable, not less, in the age of AI.
These skills include:
- Taste: The ability to know what looks, sounds, and feels good. This is a refined sense of judgment built over years of exposure and practice. AI has no taste.
- Curation: The ability to select, organize, and present information in a compelling way. This is the work of an editor, a DJ, and a museum curator.
- Articulation: The ability to speak and write persuasively, to articulate a vision so clearly that you can direct people or machines to help you realize it.
- Deep Knowledge: A rich reference point of art history, culture, and science. Someone with a humanities degree who understands artistic periods and cultural movements can prompt an AI with a specificity and nuance that a casual user cannot possibly match. They can ask for new combinations that have never existed before.
This is the unfair advantage of the true creative. Your mind, your experience, and your unique point of view are the assets. AI is just the paintbrush. The critical skill for the 21st century, Do has said even before the rise of generative AI, is the ability to articulate ideas. Developing a strong authentic personal brand is now more important than ever.
Stop focusing on the tool. Start focusing on the art. What do you want to say about the world? How do you want to change someone’s point of view? That is the work.
Choose Love Over Fear
There are valid reasons to be afraid of AI. But Do urges creators to weigh two different kinds of fear.
He cites entrepreneur Daniel Priestley, who believes AI will be the biggest economic driver of our lifetime, creating a new generation of millionaires and billionaires. The distribution of that wealth, however, will be highly uneven. Do asks a piercing question: “I don't want to be the person when my children are adults and they're like, ‘Dad, there were all these millionaires and billionaires who were created. What were you doing and thinking and feeling about AI?’”
He recalls a creative director who, in the early days of Facebook, dismissed it as a fad she was too righteous to follow. For a decade, she was asleep at the wheel, only to become a frequent user years later, a Johnny-come-lately to a platform that had already reshaped culture.
The fear of the unknown is powerful. But it can be overcome.
Do shares a concept from the book Conversations with God that his wife was reading: there are only two true emotions, love and fear. Anger, jealousy, and envy are all manifestations of fear: fear of losing a connection, fear of being inadequate, fear of being left behind.
“If I have to decide how I want to live my life,” Do says, “I don't want to live a day in fear. I want to live the rest of my life in love.”
He frames the ultimate choice for every creative professional. Which fear is greater?
The fear of AI?
Or the fear of not living up to your potential? The fear of missing the single greatest economic and creative shift of our time?
Ask yourself that question. And choose love.
TRANSCRIPT
Enjoyed this? There’s more where it came from.
Get insights on creativity, business, and design from The Futur.
You can unsubscribe anytime. By submitting, you agree to receive communications and to our Privacy Policy.
“You can’t hire people to do push-ups for you.”
— Chris Do
Key Takeaways
Subscribe
Details
- Length
- 42m
- Views
- 8,385
- Topic
- CONTENT CREATION