The "absolute truth" from the AI you saw on Instagram probably doesn't exist

If you manage social media for your hotel or destination, sooner or later you've stopped scrolling at a screenshot like this: an existential question, a profound answer attributed to a chatbot, and a caption along the lines of "Claude's absolute vision" or "what AI really thinks." The post generates engagement, the comments fill up with people who are gobsmacked, and for a moment you think: what if it's true?

It almost never is, and it's worth understanding why before you reshare it — or worse, use it as a reference for your own content.

What the source actually says

Broadsight, which works in communications and reputation management, analysed this phenomenon in an article dedicated to AI-generated fake quotes. The central point is that this type of misinformation is different from the traditional kind: it almost never originates from an organised plan to manipulate public opinion, but rather from a casual and speculative use of chatbots. Someone asks an AI what a public figure could plausibly say about a recent event, gets back in seconds a formal, well-written sentence attributed to that person, with the style of a genuine journalistic quote. From there, all it takes is a screenshot to send it circulating as if it were authentic.

The most useful insight for anyone working in communications — tourism communications included — is this: the problem isn't so much the intent to deceive, but the fact that the format and tone of these outputs automatically lend credibility to the content, regardless of its truthfulness. A well-written sentence, in a professional register, with the appearance of an official statement, is perceived as authoritative no matter who — or what — actually produced it.

What this means for anyone communicating a hotel or destination

The practical translation here is direct, because the problem concerns us too, not just the big media players. If you manage the social channels of a property or a destination, you sometimes have to react quickly to viral content, screenshots, quotes that look authoritative. The temptation to reshare something eye-catching, or to take inspiration for a post ("AI says slow tourism is the future," say), is strong precisely because that kind of content is built to look true.

The bare minimum of caution is to verify two things before giving any credence to a screenshot like that: does the interface actually match the app or service being cited, and is the source verifiable outside the screenshot itself? If either element is missing, it's better to treat it as entertainment content, not information.

My experience at Oasi

With the Oasi (my boutique hotel) I often use AI for work — from writing to content localisation — and it's precisely for that reason that I've learned to be careful when I see it deployed as an "oracle" in other people's content. The difference comes down entirely to control: I know what I asked, in what context, and I can verify what comes back before publishing it. Someone looking only at the final screenshot has none of that information, and so they take at face value a sentence that might come from a carefully crafted prompt, from a different app than the one cited, or from a model that has nothing to do with the one named in the post.

The strategic point

In our sector, reputation is built in part on the credibility of what we share. A viral post with a shocking "AI quote" might seem harmless or even fun to reshare, but it implicitly communicates that we don't verify sources before giving them airtime — and that's just as true for a fake as it is for a review or a piece of industry data that's been misread. The rule remains what it's always been, just applied to a new type of content: before you share, check where it's really coming from.

*© cover image: Bruno Bustabad Garcia on Getty Images, via Canva Teams