Influencer marketing (a $21 billion industry) may soon be dominated by artificial intelligence (AI) influencers, which many label “catfishes,” as though artificial influencers pretend to be something they are not. AI is often better at presenting its true nature than some human influencers.

Social media force artificiality, especially on women: Fake breasts, altered facial proportions, and photoshopped bodies are almost necessary on platforms such as Instagram and OnlyFans, where fans expect flawlessness. Whereas AI-generated material usually displays content notices, humans who dishonestly present their images online needn’t tell viewers. Personality influencers used to dominate the internet and are still popular, but OnlyFans proved that sex appeal holds viewers longer than general likability does. 

Human influencers can’t rival AI. Virtual influencers (2.84 percent) outperform human influencers (1.72 percent), even though AI right now is perceived to be less trustworthy. AI will soon develop the emotional capacity to catch up. Virtual influencers also aren’t constrained, like human influencers — they’re cheaper, more effective, have greater control over messaging, and are available 24/7. There’s really no competition between AI and humans, for marketing companies: Either AI influencers get better at forming emotional connections, or social media redefine marketing strategies to better suit AI.

Some criticize AI for giving young men another possibly perverse, sexual outlet online — but men who fall into virtual thirst-traps already have real pornographic material to view. If incels want a bridge between reality and fantasy, as shown by TikTok’s weird NPC trend, they should view AI, not real people. Humans weren’t designed to sell themselves on the internet. 

AI influencing isn’t necessarily a good thing; it just gives us more reason to disavow social media’s image-driven tendencies. If AI replaces hypersexualized influencers, humans themselves could be less artificial. Would that be so terrible?