Credibility Is the Thing AI Can't Fake

AI has transformed the communications workflow. For PR and comms teams, the challenge is no longer getting words on the page; it's deciding which words are actually credible enough to stand behind.

Generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity are fast and fluent. They can produce a press release, an op-ed or an executive quote in seconds. But credibility doesn't come from speed or polish. It comes from judgment, context and awareness of how language will land once it's released into the real world. The gap between “this sounds good” and “this will be trusted” is where the AI loop becomes essential.

Communications don't exist in a vacuum. They are read by skeptical journalists, cautious stakeholders, internal audiences with institutional memory and critics actively seeking ambiguity. A statement that feels clear internally can come across as evasive, tone-deaf or overly confident externally.

AI isn't just a one-and-done writing machine. The most effective workflows use AI for rapid initial ideas, then slow down for refinement. The first pass builds momentum; structure, themes and raw material are enough to start. Separating creation from refinement improves outputs. The value is not in the first draft, but in what you do with it.

Once that foundation exists, the role of AI should change. Instead of acting like a writer, AI should act as an editor and an adversary. Teams can ask it to examine its own language. Where does the message sound generic? Where does the argument drift? Where does it make claims that are technically accurate but strategically fragile?

This is the moment when credible communication is made. It's where teams choose a point of view and inject the clarity they would use if this conversation were happening live with a journalist, a client or an employee.

AI can then be directed to make content clearer, more direct or more aligned with the audience's real concerns. Each prompt should have intent. Otherwise, over-editing becomes its own risk, and the content becomes technically accurate but emotionally distant, a signal that credibility has started to erode rather than improve.

This is also where evaluative AI tools like Lexient play a key role in the loop. Rather than generating content, Lexient analyzes drafts to surface potential credibility and reputational risks based on real-world precedent. It helps teams see how different audiences may interpret language and where phrasing could invite skepticism or backlash once the message leaves internal review.

For communications leaders, this kind of analysis reinforces human decision-making and gives teams a way to pressure-test language to avoid costly missteps.

Knowing when to stop is just as important as knowing how to improve. When content feels clear, intentional and owned, not just correct, the loop has done its job. AI should never erase the human behind the message. It should make that human sharper.

The professionals who benefit most from AI won't be the ones who automate everything. They'll be the ones who learn how to direct and refine communications using AI to accelerate the work, not replace the thinking.