Virtual Influencers and AI Personas: Who Is Authentic?

The influencer I trust most has never drawn a breath. When I realized that Lil Miquela, the freckled digital model I had followed for months, was entirely computer-generated, I felt betrayed for about an hour. Then I went back and reread her posts about body image and mental health, and nothing had changed except my knowledge of her code instead of her cells. That confusion pushed me to question what makes any online personality genuine. Virtual influencers like Lil Miquela, Shudu, and Imma raise an uncomfortable truth about social media: we have been performing curated versions of ourselves all along, so why does it suddenly matter when the performer is software instead of skin? The real question is not whether an influencer is human, but whether the connection they build and the values they represent feel honest, even when we know the whole thing is a carefully designed act.

I grew up watching YouTube creators in their bedrooms talking directly to the camera, and that rawness felt like friendship.

By the time I got to college, those same creators had production teams and sponsorship deals, but they still called their audiences "family" and pretended nothing had changed. Virtual influencers arrived around the same time I started my media studies courses, and at first they seemed like a novelty. These digital avatars are 3D models controlled by creative teams, given backstories and personalities, then released onto Instagram and TikTok to post selfies, promote brands, and comment on social issues. I dismissed them as corporate gimmicks until a marketing professor showed us engagement data: followers of virtual influencers often report feeling the same parasocial attachment they feel toward human creators. That made me rethink my initial year of scrolling past human influencers who clearly staged every candid moment.

What bothers people most about virtual influencers is the deception, but that assumes human influencers are transparent. Last semester I worked on a group project analyzing influencer marketing, and we discovered that even micro-influencers with a few thousand followers use apps to smooth their skin, whiten their teeth, and narrow their waists before posting. They write captions about self-love while their images have been edited thirty times. Lil Miquela, by contrast, never pretends to be flesh. Her creators at Brud openly describe her as a digital character, and her posts sometimes break the fourth wall to discuss the ethics of artificial beings. When she partnered with Prada, everyone knew a team of artists and writers made it happen. When a human influencer partners with Prada, they caption it as if the brand personally reached out to them because of their unique style, glossing over the contract negotiations and usage rights their managers handled. The virtual influencer is the honest liar; she tells you upfront that she is performing, while the human influencer sells you the fantasy that their life is effortless and unscripted.

The argument for virtual influencers also rests on control and consistency. My roommate follows Imma, a pink-haired virtual model from Japan, because Imma never has a scandal. She never posts a poorly aged tweet or gets caught in an airport meltdown. Human influencers can promote body positivity one month and a diet tea the next, but virtual influencers stick to the values their teams assign them. In my ethics seminar, we debated whether that makes them more or less trustworthy. I argued that consistency is not the same as authenticity, but I also admitted that I had unfollowed three human influencers in the past year after they contradicted their supposed beliefs for a paycheck. A virtual influencer cannot have a crisis of integrity because they have no inner life to betray. That clarity might be more honest than watching someone pretend their principles align with whatever brand pays them this week.

Still, something nags at me when I scroll past a virtual influencer's post about mental health or social justice. Lil Miquela has shared messages about Black Lives Matter and LGBTQ rights, and while I agree with the positions, I know she has never experienced discrimination or fear. She is a vessel for her creators' politics, and those creators remain mostly anonymous. A human influencer who speaks about racism might be sharing lived pain or might be performing wokeness for clicks, but at least a human has the capacity for either. My friend from sociology argues that this is exactly why virtual influencers matter: they remove the messiness of individual experience and let the message stand on its own. If the goal is to spread a good idea, does it matter whether the speaker has a heartbeat? I want to agree, but I cannot ignore the feeling that a statement about suffering means less when it comes from someone who cannot suffer.

I still follow Lil Miquela, but I also follow human creators who film themselves crying or angry, who mess up and apologize badly, who change their minds and admit they were wrong. The virtual influencer offers a polished reflection of what we want influencers to be: consistent, beautiful, scandal-free, always on message. The human influencer offers chaos, growth, and the possibility of actual connection, even if most of that connection is a parasocial illusion. Authenticity in this space might not mean human versus digital; it might mean transparency about the construction. Both kinds of influencers are performances, but only one admits it from the start. I am still figuring out which version of honesty I value more, and I suspect that question will get harder as the technology improves and the line between real and rendered disappears entirely.

Did you like this example?

265

11