HOLY SUNDAY.-To open a social network today is to encounter a scene that, until recently, would have seemed absurd. A cup of coffee explains how to organize household finances. A tomato speaks fluently about health. A water bottle “warns” of hidden dangers. A chair analyzes world politics. And he does it with a confidence that convinces.
They are not people. They are everyday objects that talk, gesture and look at the camera as if they know exactly what they are talking about. And the most disturbing thing is not that they speak, but that many believe them almost blindly.
These types of videos, created with artificial intelligence applications, have multiplied on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok, spaces where emotion usually outweighs analysis and where traditional authority (the expert, the technician, the professional) arouses more and more suspicion.
This resource has made a significant part of the audience trust more in what a heart animated by artificial intelligence says than in the opinion of a cardiologist; more in a part of a vehicle that “talks” than in an automotive engineer; more in a cup that gives opinions on infusions than in an endocrinologist. The object is close, friendly, apparently disinterested, enough to gain trust in what it proposes.
What began as a creative and humorous resource has become a communication phenomenon with the real capacity to influence the perception of reality.
A tomato that “explains” its supposed healing properties can generate more credibility than a scientific article, even if the content was prepared by someone without training in the subject.
The phenomenon
This phenomenon is known as “talking objects” or “talking things”. It is based on digital animations that, in seconds, convert static images into characters with voices, gestures and personality. Unlike traditional cartoons, they don’t come from fantasy worlds. They come from the kitchen, the dining room, the car, the supermarket.
A cup, a glass, a broccoli, a shoe, a vehicle part, a chicken breast or a lettuce leaf speak like humans. They do not argue or confront, limiting themselves to offering “explanations” using a firm, confident and almost pedagogical tone.
Low defense
This apparent neutrality disarms the viewer’s defenses. The object does not seem to have an agenda or hidden interests. For this reason, many receive the message as if it were scientific truth, even when no sources, studies or specialists are cited.
Even the content of the message itself is usually prepared with artificial intelligence, only by designing prompts that detail the objective being pursued.
The phenomenon is growing at the pace of the accelerated advance of generative artificial intelligence and the logic of digital platforms, which reward short, emotional content that is easy to share on the networks.
Thus, videos appear where a fruit “warns” about foods that supposedly cause illness, or a bottle that “reveals” conspiracies about drinking water. The message is presented with simple language, a colloquial tone and absolute confidence. Which generates trust.
Credibility on sand
This logic is not harmless. It affects journalism, education, politics and even the experience of faith, where discernment gives way to immediate emotion.
Videos abound in which fruits and foods “talk” about supposed healing properties. A pineapple that “cleanses the liver.” A lemon that “alkalizes the blood and eliminates cancer cells.” An avocado that promises to “cure diabetes” just by eating it daily. Most of these messages lack scientific support; In many cases, it contradicts widely accepted medical consensus.
Objects that recommend home remedies as substitutes for formal medical treatments also appear. Infusions, food combinations or extreme fasts presented as alternatives for hypertension, depression or chronic diseases.
The danger is that these messages are not presented as opinions, but as “simple truths that no one wants to tell you,” a formula that fuels distrust toward medicine and health institutions.
Furthermore, there is no shortage of containers that “report” hidden dangers, such as bottles that talk about imaginary toxins, cups that demonize coffee, and plastic containers that exaggerate risks by mixing real data with false conclusions.
Faced with short, emotional and well-produced messages, the average viewer has difficulty distinguishing between partial information and open misinformation.
All of this content has in common that it lacks identifiable sources, does not cite verifiable studies, and does not warn about its limitations. But they are transmitted by a friendly, close and apparently neutral object. And that, today, seems to be enough to convince audiences.
Credibility
– Motivation
For years, credibility was associated with the authority of the speaker. Nowadays, many times it is believed not because the message is well founded, but because “something that I liked was explained to me.”
Friendly and easy-to-reach technology
App. These images and videos are created using generative artificial intelligence applications that combine digital animation, speech synthesis and visual recognition applied to objects.
From a common photograph of a cup, a fruit or any everyday object, the system detects contours, volumes and surfaces to simulate human features such as mouth, eyes and facial expressions.
An artificial voice, generated from text or real recordings, is then integrated and synchronized with the movements of the object.
The process can be done in a few minutes from a mobile phone or computer, without the need for advanced technical knowledge.
Some platforms even allow you to adjust the emotional tone, accent and rhythm of the speech.
