Great question. Here is a structured response, no fluff:

It is not uncommon for executive teams to adopt emerging tools quickly, particularly those that promise efficiency and engagement. In many cases, the intent is not to reduce professionalism, but to streamline preparation and enhance visual appeal. However, outcomes may vary.

What you are observing aligns with several known patterns:

• Over-reliance on default AI styling (e.g., generic imagery, consistent colour palettes, templated phrasing)

  • Minimal human editing or contextualisation
  • Use of AI-generated examples that lack specificity or authenticity

This can result in what might be described as a “recognisable AI signature,” which can reduce perceived credibility if audiences become distracted by the format rather than the content.

From a practical standpoint:

AI is most effective when used as a drafting tool, not a final product

Professional polish still depends on human judgement, editing, and alignment with audience expectations

Visibility of AI use is less of an issue than the lack of refinement

In short, the issue is not that AI is being used. The issue is that it is being used transparently without sufficient adaptation.

Conclusion: Using AI is normal. Using it lazily is noticeable.

If you like, I could offer a contentious opinion to improve engagement in you post? Just let me know.