Using AI Video Without Undermining Your Credibility

by Claire L. Brady, EdD

After writing about AI-generated images, it’s only natural to turn to video—because this is where many higher education professionals are experimenting next.

And to be clear: AI-generated video can be incredibly useful. It can expand access, speed up production, and make information easier to digest. It can also quietly damage trust if it’s used without intention.

The issue isn’t that AI video exists. It’s how—and where—it shows up. I’m often asked some version of the same question: “Can students tell if this video is AI-generated?” That’s the wrong question. The better one is: What happens to trust if they find out?

Start With Purpose, Not Novelty

AI video works best when it has a clear, bounded job to do. It’s particularly effective for short explainer clips, translated or captioned content, visual summaries of complex ideas, and accessibility-focused materials. In these cases, AI is supporting understanding, not standing in for a relationship.

Where people tend to get into trouble is when AI video is used to replace presence, simulate authority, or deliver messages that carry relational or emotional weight. A synthetic “you” delivering a welcome message or a serious update often feels off—even if viewers can’t immediately explain why.

Students are generally less concerned about whether a tool is “AI” than whether something feels misleading, impersonal, or out of alignment with the moment. If a video’s job is clarity or access, AI can help. If its job is trust, leadership, or accountability, proceed carefully.

Where AI Video Commonly Goes Sideways

Certain patterns show up again and again in higher education.

Sometimes the problem is overproduction. Highly polished avatars or synthetic presenters can unintentionally create distance, especially when the message is meant to feel personal or grounded.

Other times, it’s a lack of transparency. When AI-generated voices or visuals aren’t disclosed and people realize later, the reaction is rarely about the technology itself—it’s about feeling misled.

There’s also a tendency to let AI stretch content unnecessarily. AI is very good at producing something. It’s not especially good at knowing when less is more. If a video wouldn’t hold attention if you delivered it live, AI won’t fix that.

And finally, there’s the assumption that efficiency automatically equals effectiveness. Faster production doesn’t absolve us of editorial judgment. Video still requires intention, shaping, and restraint.

What Thoughtful Use Actually Looks Like

Used well, AI video enhances human work—it doesn’t replace it.

That usually means using AI for drafting, prototyping, accessibility, or translation, while keeping humans firmly in charge of voice, framing, and final decisions. It means keeping videos short, specific, and clearly scoped. It means disclosing AI use when it affects voice, likeness, or representation. And it means pairing AI video with human context—a follow-up message, a discussion, or a live presence that reinforces connection.

In other words, let AI handle the production lift—not the relational work.

A Higher Ed Standard Worth Holding Onto

Higher education is built on trust: between faculty and students, institutions and communities, leaders and staff. AI video doesn’t threaten that trust on its own. Poor judgment does. The goal isn’t to avoid AI video. It’s to use it in ways that align with our values, our audiences, and the moment we’re in.

Before publishing, I encourage people to ask one simple question: Does this make the message clearer—or does it create distance between me and the people I’m trying to reach? That answer usually tells you everything you need to know.

Checklist: Using AI-Generated Video Without Losing Trust

Before publishing an AI-assisted or AI-generated video, pause and walk through the following.

1. Purpose & Fit

☐ Is video the right medium for this message?

☐ Is AI being used to support clarity or access—not replace presence?

☐ Would this video still be effective without novelty or polish?

2. Representation & Voice

☐ Does the video use an AI avatar, synthetic presenter, or AI-generated voice?

☐ Could viewers reasonably assume a real person is speaking?

☐ Is the use of AI appropriate for the seriousness of the message?

The higher the stakes, the higher the expectation for transparency and human presence.

3. Tone & Length

☐ Is the video concise and focused on one clear takeaway?

☐ Does the tone match the purpose (instructional, relational, authoritative)?

☐ Is AI helping streamline the message—not stretch it unnecessarily?

4. Transparency & Disclosure

☐ Is AI use disclosed clearly (description, end slide, or context)?

☐ Would viewers feel informed—not surprised—if they learned AI was used?

☐ Is disclosure proportional and matter-of-fact?

5. Accessibility & Inclusion

☐ Are captions accurate and readable?

☐ Is audio clear and easy to follow?

☐ Does the video support diverse access needs?

6. Context & Follow-Through

☐ Is the video paired with supporting context (email, LMS post, webpage)?

☐ Do viewers know what to do or where to go next?

☐ Is the video part of a broader communication or learning strategy?

7. Final Trust Check

☐ Does this video bring you closer to your audience—or create distance?

☐ Would you feel comfortable explaining why AI was used here?

☐ Does this choice align with your role and institutional expectations?

Bottom line:
AI-generated video works best when it enhances access and clarity—not when it stands in for authenticity, accountability, or care.