Should you, a business leader, be using GPT for posts?

A few years ago, most people would have brushed this off. But when Deepinder Goyal posted a short update on X and someone decided to zoom in and “analyse” it, the whole thing blew up. Many criticised him for taking a shortcut. Some defended him. And then it faded, like these things always do.

We’ve seen creators get called out for similar things, so this isn’t new. I didn’t react strongly for two simple reasons.

1. D2C has become a space everyone wants to jump into. Young founders are constantly creating content because that’s what gets attention now.

2. The rules in this space are flexible. People mix personal style, quick posts, and half-baked thoughts, and it still works for them.

But the real question is this: what about senior leaders who are not founders? Do they also take shortcuts when posting online? And if they do, does it affect how people view them? Does it impact trust, seriousness, or long-term perception?

Before answering that, here’s what recent data shows.

⸻

What the numbers say

• Over half of long-form content online has some level of AI involvement now.

• After ChatGPT launched in 2022, AI-assisted writing grew almost overnight.

• In India, more than 35% of professionals use AI for writing social posts or repetitive tasks.

And here’s the surprising part:

• Posts detected as AI-written get around 45% less engagement.

• Many people use AI but only a small percentage admit it.

• Trust has become the key factor in 2026. People are more sceptical now.

⸻

How AI affects different groups

1. People who use AI heavily

For them, the role has shifted. They’re not “writing” as much as planning, editing, and directing.

• AI helps them produce more content with less effort.

• They can create personalised posts faster.

• But too much AI leads to a generic tone that people now recognise and scroll past.

• The smarter ones use AI to create text, video scripts and visuals together while keeping their own tone intact.

2. People who prefer writing on their own

This group still has an advantage.

• Readers appreciate posts that sound real and personal.

• General writing is commoditised now, so specialists with real experience stand out.

• Search engines and platforms reward content based on real knowledge, not recycled phrasing.

⸻

Impact on others involved

LinkedIn

It’s becoming more personalised, but it also has a growing problem of repetitive, AI-heavy posts.

Readers

They’re tired. A lot of content sounds the same, and trust is not easily given.

Businesses

Teams are getting smaller but more strategic. AI helps with volume; humans handle quality.

Search engines

They now prioritise well-researched content over keyword tricks.

⸻

The risk side

• Too much automation reduces trust.

• Regulations in the US and EU are getting stricter.

• AI can still generate errors or biased content if not checked.

⸻

Now let’s talk about senior leaders

Most people agree there are upsides and downsides to senior leaders using AI for their posts or communication. That’s fine. But regardless of what others believe, I have a firm view on this:

Senior leaders should avoid using AI tools to draft or write communication intended for the external world — and in many cases, even internal communication.

Let me explain why.

⸻

Why senior leaders should be cautious

AI tools today can improve clarity and structure, yes. But the real problem is much simpler:

AI content checkers are not reliable, and public reaction is unpredictable.

Even if a leader uses AI only for a light edit, there’s always a risk that someone online will scan it, detect AI patterns incorrectly, and start a conversation that spirals.

That creates two problems instantly:

1. Doubt

Once people suspect a senior leader didn’t write something themselves, trust is shaken. Whether the suspicion is true or not doesn’t matter — perception takes over.

2. Misinterpretation

AI sometimes introduces phrasing that looks polished but lacks intent. For a senior leader, even one poorly worded sentence can turn into a PR issue.

In short: the risk is not worth the convenience.

⸻

To support this, here’s what current research and patterns show

1. AI detection is highly inconsistent

Fully human-written content often gets flagged as AI, while AI-written text sometimes passes undetected. This inconsistency creates unnecessary noise and reputational risk for leaders.

2. Public opinion is not stable

Online reactions are unpredictable. A harmless post can trigger accusations of laziness, inauthenticity, or dishonesty simply because it “reads like AI.”

3. Stakeholders judge leaders differently

Employees, investors, regulators, and customers expect leaders to speak from lived experience, not from tools. The bar for authenticity is higher for leadership.

4. AI fingerprints are everywhere

Most AI tools leave behind subtle language patterns, tone markers, and rhythm changes. People who scan for these are becoming better at spotting them — even wrongly.

5. Search engines now penalise generic tone

In 2026, SEO and answer engines down-rank content that sounds formulaic or patterned. Leaders relying on AI run the risk of becoming invisible in search summaries and expert references.

⸻

The deeper issue: leadership signals

When a senior leader uses AI for communication, the message unintentionally shifts from:

“This is what I think.”

to:

“This is what a tool thinks I should say.”

It weakens the sense of direction and ownership that people look for from leadership.

And here’s the nuance:

People don’t expect leaders to be flawless writers. They expect them to be real.

A post with imperfect grammar but strong conviction builds more trust than a smooth, AI-polished paragraph that feels hollow.

⸻

So what should leaders do instead?

My recommendation is simple and practical:

Leaders should share raw thoughts or voice notes, and let a human editor shape them into a readable format.

This keeps:

• clarity

• authenticity

• accountability

• context

• tone

• trust

And it removes the risk of:

• AI misphrasing

• plagiarised structure

• mislabelled AI detection

• tone mismatch

• credibility loss

If AI is used at all, it should be used for:

• summarising meetings

• organising information

• research support

Not for writing their outward-facing communication.

⸻

The balanced bottom line

Yes, AI can be helpful. Yes, it saves time. But for senior leaders, the stakes are higher.

A simple rule makes life easier:

If your words represent the organisation, keep AI out of the writing process.

Use it for support behind the scenes, not for producing the final message.

⸻

If you want, I can also create:

• a detailed, more “humanized piece for your new business-social app: “Corporate Social”

• a WhatsApp-friendly message to have your alumni from ISB to join Corporate Social and work like a support system for you :’)

You got me there, haha. But I’m glad you have read it this far anyway and I’d genuinely need your support with using and shaping the course of development of Corporate Social.

Eager to read, what you think, in the comments :)