Databox CEO Peter Caputa not too long ago posted that he’s releasing a brand new video course taught totally by his AI double. The avatar, powered by the favored AI video instrument HeyGen, seems to be and sounds similar to him, delivering hours of skilled content material on his behalf.
This transfer has sparked a serious debate: Is that this a superb time-saving technique or a step too distant from authenticity? Whereas Caputa notes that he wrote each phrase of the script based mostly on his 25+ years of expertise, the particular person on display screen is not him—it is a digital duplicate. And with HeyGen now valued at $500 million with over 40,000 enterprise prospects, the query extra leaders shall be pressured to reply quickly is:
Do you have to be making AI avatars of your executives?
To interrupt it down, I talked it by with SmarterX and Advertising AI Institute founder and CEO Paul Roetzer on Episode 167 of The Synthetic Intelligence Present.
A Subjective Alternative
Roetzer, who has recognized Caputa for 18 years, has a nuanced take. As somebody who simply spent a whole bunch of hours personally recording greater than 20 programs for SmarterX’s AI Academy, his speedy response is that he couldn’t think about utilizing an avatar himself.
“For me, private connection and authenticity are important in speaking with my audiences,” he says. “I can not even fathom utilizing an AI avatar in my place to show a course.”
However, that does not imply he disagrees with Caputa’s selection, and the technique for him and his model.
“It’s a subjective determination. There is not essentially a proper or mistaken.”
Opinions on the topic are combined, too. Caputa’s LinkedIn put up on the subject drew tons of each adverse and optimistic feedback. Some praised the effectivity of utilizing AI avatars, whereas others felt it created a disconnect.
The Uncanny Valley Is Disappearing, Quick
This query is about to change into far more urgent, says Roetzer. As a result of the technological limitations that when made AI avatars really feel clunky and unnatural are vanishing. The slight imperfections in motion or tone (that “uncanny valley” feeling) are being smoothed out with every new software program replace.
Quickly, telling the distinction between an actual video and an AI-generated one shall be practically inconceivable with out entry to the metadata.
“We will get to the purpose the place you simply do not know,” Roetzer says. “Movies within the very close to future are going to simply be indiscernible from actuality.”
That is now not a distinct segment challenge. Roetzer factors to a latest video of the US president that went viral on social media as a result of many viewers have been satisfied it was an AI avatar. Because the know-how turns into extra seamless, the road between actual and synthetic will solely get blurrier, forcing customers and creators alike to query what they’re seeing.
Discovering the Proper Place on the Human-to-Machine Scale
The controversy over AI avatars mirrors a broader dialog about the place to attract the road with AI in content material creation. Particularly provided that not all content material requires the identical stage of human contact.
Roetzer compares it to a scale he developed for writers utilizing AI throughout Advertising AI Institute’s AI for Writers Summit 2025. For some duties, like writing product descriptions or primary touchdown pages, there’s possible far much less debate over whether or not or to not use AI.
“Who cares?” he says. “Individuals simply need the knowledge.”
However for high-stakes, high-trust content material like a keynote presentation or a private editorial, it might get murkier, since audiences might anticipate the actual particular person.
“When it is like a keynote presentation or an editorial piece, you wish to know that that is coming from the particular person,” says Roetzer.
The identical logic applies to AI avatars. Whereas utilizing one for a fast inner onboarding video is likely to be acceptable, a paid course from a trusted skilled carries completely different expectations. Finally, the choice comes all the way down to understanding your viewers.
“This isn’t prescriptive. It’s as much as you to determine the place that consolation stage is,” says Roetzer. “In case your viewers expects you to point out up and be authentically there, and to have put these additional two hours in to report the factor, it’s important to present up and do it.”
Each Chief Should Now Select a Path
Caputa’s experiment isn’t a one-off curiosity. It’s a preview of a selection each model and enterprise chief will quickly face. With avatar know-how changing into extra accessible and highly effective, the temptation to save lots of time and scale content material manufacturing shall be immense.
The core query is not in regards to the know-how itself, however in regards to the technique behind it. It forces a dialog about what your model values most: the effectivity of automation or the irreplaceable connection of human presence.
For Roetzer and his staff, the reply is obvious: they received’t be utilizing AI avatars for his or her academic programs . However he stresses that each group should have this dialog now.
“We’re all going to have to decide on how we use AI to create our content material, our thought management, our experience,” says Roetzer. “You will, as a model or as a person creator or chief, have the selection to deepfake the factor.”
