AI-Generated Video: From Creative Promise to Uncanny Valley of Misinformation

When OpenAI introduced the first iteration of Sora, many creators were optimistic that the tool would lift the longstanding barrier to producing short films. The concept was simple: upload a script and storyboard sketches, and let the AI render a polished movie. Unfortunately, the demos proved outclassed by reality. Even with careful input, the outputs rarely aligned with the original vision; they hovered near the intended scene but diverged in crucial details. The disappointment was not confined to Sora alone. Runway ML, Veo, and other generative video platforms routinely produced surfaces that looked technically correct but lacked narrative depth. They were adept at generating generic, trope-laden cuts—what could be described as “look‑good” but, in practice, generic. A coherent story requiring intentionality and specificity remained elusive. With the launch of Sora 2, the hardware improved: the visuals were more realistic, and dialogue generation sharpened. Yet the core issue endured. These systems generate what can be called “AI Videos,” a distinctive aesthetic that is recognisable by slight imperfections, uncanny textures, and a pervasive sense of sameness that makes the content feel artificial. This new aesthetic resembles an uncanny valley in the digital domain. If a user describes a high‑energy promotional clip featuring a person speaking directly to the camera with ring‑light glare, jump cuts, and a bedroom backdrop, the immediate mental association is a TikTok video—a format well understood by modern audiences. AI‑generated footage, however, carries its own visual signature: subtle misalignments in shading, over‑smooth skin tones, or slightly off‑hand movement that together provoke an instinctive discomfort, even if the specific flaws cannot be named. The line between authentic and synthetic content is widening on platforms like YouTube, where creators increasingly employ AI to subtly enhance their videos. Users may notice smoothed facial features or sharpened details applied without the original creator’s knowledge. The convergence of AI‑augmented and purely AI‑generated content creates confusion and erodes trust. These aesthetic shortcomings are exploited by bad actors—spammers, scammers, rage‑baiters, and social manipulators. In an earlier overview, the author speculated that search engines might in the future offer AI‑generated video summaries. While that remains speculative, the deployment of synthetic videos for malicious purposes is already in full effect. The primary victims are older adults. Within community and family groups, fabricated videos circulate rapidly—health misinformation, sensational headlines, or false statements attributed to public figures. For example, fabricated clips of well‑known actors delivering life advice or doctored endorsements by former politicians thrive on the very platforms that were designed to foster genuine human interaction. Such content spreads at a blistering pace. The author’s attempts to debunk these videos—pointing out watermark logos, encouraging fact‑checking, and highlighting contextual inconsistencies—appear ineffective. The speed with which misinformation propagates outpaces human capacity for verification. Comments sections on platforms like YouTube routinely reveal genuine, emotionally invested responses to fictional personas, underscoring how easily synthetic media can infiltrate real discourse. There is no straightforward remedy to this crisis. AI video technology has found a receptive audience, but the audience differs from the intended demographic envisioned by marketing narratives. The platform’s capabilities align more closely with enabling manipulation and deception than with supporting creative expression. Efforts to identify legitimate, beneficial applications—such as educational tools, accessibility enhancements, or experimental artistry—have reached the same conclusion: in practice, the technology predominantly fuels harmful uses. The broader consequence is a pervasive erosion of visual media integrity, leaving users skeptical and distrustful of authentic content. In sum, AI‑generated video tools such as Sora fulfill a promise that remains largely unactualized for creators. They continue to serve the interests of those who wish to engineer misinformation or manipulate audiences, thereby deepening the cultural and psychological barriers of trust that must be rebuilt in a post‑digital media landscape.