Matt Owens, Staff Writer • February 28, 2026

Dalia Zamora / Hilltop Views

The use of artificial intelligence in the making of advertisements is here to stay, as it was proven by this year’s Super Bowl 60 ads. However, should companies increasingly rely on the use of AI instead of hiring a creative team to work on these ads, risking severing an important emotional connection between service and consumer?

This year’s Super Bowl made one thing clear: artificial intelligence is no longer just a futuristic concept, it is officially a marketing strategy. From ads generated with AI tools to commercials promoting AI-powered products, the technology was everywhere. Yet, instead of being amazed, many viewers were unimpressed. Social media reactions labeled several of the ads as “slop,” criticizing them for feeling lazy, soulless or unsettling. That backlash raises an important question: is AI helping advertising evolve, or is it weakening creativity?

There is no doubt that AI will remain a part of advertising moving forward. The technology is simply too powerful and too efficient to ignore. However, how it is used will determine whether it becomes a valuable tool or a harmful shortcut. First, it is important to understand why companies are so eager to use AI in advertising. The most obvious reason is efficiency. AI tools can generate scripts, visuals, animations and even entire video concepts in a fraction of the time it would take a traditional creative team. For companies spending millions on high-profile advertising spots like the Super Bowl, saving time and money is extremely appealing. AI also allows brands to test multiple versions of an ad quickly and tailor messaging to different audiences. In theory, that means more personalized and relevant marketing.

AI can also enable creative possibilities that might otherwise be impossible or extremely expensive. For example, Dunkin’ used digital de-aging technology to recreate a nostalgic look for its celebrity-driven campaign. Similarly, Xfinity incorporated AI to “de-age” actors and create new scenes inspired by “Jurassic Park.” For example, using AI to help older actors look younger or recreate scenes from beloved films allows companies to tap into nostalgia. When done well, this can create powerful emotional connections with viewers. There are also beneficial uses behind the scenes: AI can analyze audience data to determine which storylines resonate most, optimize ad placements and reduce waste in marketing budgets. In these ways, AI can serve as a tool that enhances human creativity rather than replaces it.

However, the backlash to many AI-driven ads suggests that audiences can tell when technology is being used as a shortcut. Advertising has always relied on storytelling, humor, surprise and emotional depth. When AI generated content lacks those human qualities, viewers notice. The criticism reflects a broader concern that AI generated material can sometimes feel generic, repetitive or disconnected from authentic human experience. I personally found those nostalgia driven ads more interesting than the fully AI generated visuals that felt random or chaotic. There was something intentional about using AI to enhance a concept that already had meaning, rather than relying on AI to generate the entire idea from scratch. That difference stood out to me and is how I think AI can make connections with viewers.

Privacy is also a growing issue. AI systems depend on massive amounts of data to function effectively. Consumers are often unaware of how much of their personal information is being collected and analyzed. There is also the question of authenticity. Using AI to digitally recreate actors or revive older media properties raises ethical concerns about consent and artistic integrity. If I were an actor or public figure, I would seriously question how comfortable I would feel with companies using my image to create advertisements that I did not fully agree with or help shape creatively. While some actors may agree to be digitally altered, what happens in the future when companies attempt to use AI versions of individuals who are no longer alive? Should there be limits on how someone’s likeness can be used? These issues blur the line between innovation and exploitation.

I personally don’t mind AI ads. My biggest concern, however, is the impact on the creative job market. Advertising is not just a billion-dollar industry, it is made up of real people: writers brainstorming late into the night, designers perfecting visuals, editors shaping emotion through timing, actors bringing scripts to life and entire production crews working behind the scenes. When companies turn to AI primarily to cut costs, it is those people whose jobs are placed on the line. If I were one of those creatives, I would feel anxious watching companies experiment with tools that can generate scripts, voices and visuals in seconds. It is not just about losing employment; it is about losing the value placed on human imagination and experience. Creativity is deeply personal. It comes from lived experiences, culture, struggle, humor and emotion things algorithms do not actually feel. If companies begin prioritizing speed and savings over artistry, the industry risks sending the message that human creativity is replaceable. That possibility is what makes the rapid rise of AI in advertising feel unsettling. While technological advancement has always reshaped industries, the rapid pace of AI development makes this transition kinda scary. The fear is not just job loss, but the devaluation of human creativity.

So, should AI be banned in advertising?

In my opinion, no. Banning AI outright would be unrealistic and counterproductive. Technology has always influenced marketing from television to digital analytics, and AI is simply the next evolution. Instead of prohibition, what is needed is responsible regulation and ethical boundaries.

First, transparency should be required. If an advertisement is significantly AI-generated, audiences should know. Disclosure builds trust. Second, strict data privacy protections must be enforced to prevent exploitative targeting. Consumers deserve control over how their information is used. Third, there should be clear rules regarding the digital recreation of real people, especially when it involves their likeness or voice. Consent should always be enforced.

Ultimately, AI in advertising is not inherently good or bad. It is a tool. Like any tool, its impact depends on how it is used. When AI enhances creativity, respects privacy and operates transparently, it can improve efficiency and expand storytelling possibilities. When it replaces human insight, exploits data or prioritizes cost-cutting over quality, it damages both trust and the art of advertising.

The Super Bowl backlash may serve as a warning to brands, showing them that audiences do not want technology just for technology’s sake. They want stories that feel genuine, clever and human. AI can assist in achieving that goal, but it cannot replace the human experiences that make advertising meaningful in the first place. If companies learn to treat AI as a collaborator rather than a replacement, advertising may evolve in exciting ways. If they treat it as a shortcut, viewers will continue to call it what they already have “slop.”