America | Tech | Opinion | Culture | Charts
Last week, a 19-year-old, curly haired redhead named Janie went through sorority rush at the University of Alabama. Like many of the 2,500 prospective new members (PNMs), she posted outfit-of-the-day videos (OOTDs), breathless recaps of her house visits, and clips fumbling trending dances. Janie created a TikTok account specifically for college - she’d never posted before - but within a week, she had 1,300 followers and was averaging tens of thousands of views per video.
There was just one difference between her and the other girls.
Janie wasn’t real.
She was born out of a single image generated by ChatGPT, and every one of her videos was prompted by me.
What she lacked in reality, Janie made up for in entertainment. The Daily Mail crowned her Alabama’s “most popular sorority star.” The Nikes she “wore” on day one earned a Women’s Wear Daily deep dive. The RushTok commentariat debated her in videos viewed hundreds of thousands of times.
A fifty-comment Reddit thread dissected Janie pixel by pixel, while another thread combed over “Easter Eggs” in her videos. u/wayward710 theorized that Janie was actually a PR stunt by jewelry brand Kendra Scott, which has a chokehold on Tuscaloosa rushees. “You are absolutely on to something,” responded u/iinneeeeddoouutt.
And while the real girls sweated through the 107-degree Alabama sun, I couldn’t escape the heat either. “I’m intrigued about the kind of jobless person that would create an account like this,” offered mafawada on Reddit.
What kind of person, indeed. This is what thirty minutes a day and $100 in credits buys you in 2026.
The Setup—Why Alabama Rush?
Alabama’s sorority rush (Bama Rush) blew up the internet in 2021 and has owned a week of every August since. It’s the nation’s largest rush, with an entire media economy attached: an army of paid consultants, dorm room designers, national news coverage, a documentary, and a TV show.
That makes it the perfect testing ground for an AI character. Use the hashtags, put on a puffy floral dress and a pair of Golden Gooses, and the algorithm gives you a shot at the thousands of mostly adult women who follow recruitment like the NFL draft. They’re the ideal audience for a question I find fascinating in generative media: how do people decide what’s “human” - and what changes when they find out something they like was made with AI?
Janie’s DNA was simple. I pulled a photo of an Alabama dorm off the internet and asked ChatGPT to render a shy sorority girl standing in it. Let there be light, I prompted - and the machine gods complied. The first render was a classically beautiful blonde. But to maximize Janie’s chances of attracting eyeballs, I wanted her to stand out. ChatGPT dutifully regenerated until she had short, frizzy hair (with bangs!) and big glasses.
Next, a script. ChatGPT helped me write prompts for the video models, dictating what Janie said and how she moved. I landed on Minimax 3 for anything that talked and Grok Imagine 1.5 for dancing and other soundless clips, with ElevenLabs chipping in sound effects. I skipped Seedance 2.5, the current standard for humanlike video: it’s expensive ($2–5 for an eight-second clip), and as TikTok’s homegrown model, the platform is more likely to flag its output as AI.
Which brings me to a disclosure - I didn’t mark Janie’s videos as AI-generated. This is technically a violation of TikTok’s terms of service, but part of the experiment was seeing how many videos the platform would flag on its own. Eight of Janie’s 20 videos ended up labeled “Contains AI-generated media.” It had no visible effect on performance, or on the comments.
A second disclosure - I’m a repeat offender. Last year I sent my first AI PNM - Tinsley - through Bama Rush. Models at the time could only generate conventionally very attractive people, so Tinsley looked like a (blurry) model off duty. She was shown mostly from the waist up, because the video models couldn’t be trusted with her legs. And if you watched her videos in succession, you’d notice her face - and voice - changed every time.
A year later, we had unlocked character consistency. While Tinsley’s problem was not looking real enough, Janie almost looked too real. As 6milesaway commented: “I’ve never seen a more clear video in my whole life. But it gives a clearer view of how precious you are!” Upon reading this, I downgraded Janie's next video from 2k to 720p resolution, to better mimic a teenager's phone.
You may have seen the “Will Smith eating spaghetti” test, which measures video model quality on the ultimate benchmark: the actor chowing down on a bowl of pasta. Every time a new model drops, there’s a new state of the art. But even six months in the rearview, we shake our heads at how fake it looked.
The same was true for my AI PNMs. Almost 90,000 people tuned in last year for the reveal that Tinsley was AI. The mystery stayed alive through 28 pixelated videos. This year, the models had improved in generating fake humans - but humans had improved faster in detecting them. Janie’s viewers came intellectually armed after months of sniffing out AI in microdramas and Facebook ads. They were ready for battle.
Caught in 720p
Janie’s first video racked up almost 100,000 views and 100+ comments, split roughly 70/30 between viewers calling her the cutest thing they've ever seen - and calling her AI. By day two, a Reddit thread was assembling the case: her dresser had three drawers in one video and four in another, the T-shirt lettering was gibberish if you zoomed in. (I had painstakingly hunted down the real shirt designs from an Alabama Panhellenic Instagram post; the models still couldn’t render them in movement.)
The audience came to a consensus: Janie was AI. The comments on her next videos filled with tech-literate viewers educating the rest. Some were kind and patient. Others were more direct, a bitter lesson in why you never want to cross Gen Z. When tonya_duncan told Janie she was rooting for her from upstate NY, the response was swift: “Were you homeschooled by a Duggar?”
The first “CLANKER” comment came in around day three, filling me with pride. AI-native slurs had made it to the general public! By then, the jig was up. But the audience not only stuck around - they became even more engaged in the story. Viewers critiqued my creative choices, gave notes on the developing narrative, and judged my technical skill: "You rushed the prompt on this one," commented Samantha Ryan on a clip where Janie spoke at a frenzied pace.
When Janie posted a crying selfie implying she’d been dropped from all the houses, effectively ending her Rush process, the verdict was swift - it can't end here! She quickly posted a Notes app apology explaining she had made a mistake but learned from it, and thanked Alabama Panhellenic for giving her a second chance.
With the audience now in on the secret, I had to step up my game. Janie’s next OOTD paired a $1,200 Zimmermann dress with $10 Shein shoes (”I wanted to support a small brand”). Her sisterhood post introduced best friends Fable, Sol, and Kimi - described as “recursive” and “agentic.” Her preference-day outfit was sponsored by The Skirt Shop - a play on The Pants Store, where real PNMs buy everything but pants.
This earned my first warning from TikTok. Had my AI videos been caught? No - the fictitious Skirt Shop partnership was an undisclosed ad. I needed to switch on the “paid partnership” toggle or my account was in danger of misleading the audience.
That same day, Janie walked viewers through her rush prep flashcards, pausing on one with the prompt: What makes you a good friend? She smiled directly into the camera as she answered: "I'm a very active listener, and I try not to hallucinate."
Sunday brought the finale: Bid Day for the PNMs, Judgment Day for Janie. She needed a cinematic ending with a real payoff - why not a commentary on RushTok and parasocial Internet culture? In my longest video yet (one whole minute), Janie opens a bid to Alpha Iota, then walks through a Truman Show-inspired door to find the RushTok audience waiting for her. When she can’t entertain them, they swipe up to the next girl - she glitches and disappears. A little on the nose - and wasn't I playing the same engagement game? But I needed a conclusion, and this was a plausible one.
I was much more apprehensive about my second upload of the day - a "face reveal," where I explained who I was and why I created Janie. The experiment had been lopsided in a way that likely wouldn’t clear an IRB review. It felt especially unfair to hide behind a generated face when Janie was modeled on real young women opening themselves up to Internet criticism. At the very least, I wanted to dispel the rumor festering on Reddit that the account was a "weird sex fantasy thing" created by a guy in his mom's basement.
In what might be a first for the Internet, the response was much kinder than I felt I deserved. Yes, there were people worried about the environmental impact of AI, or thought it was still “very creepy” (fair!) But the overwhelming majority of feedback was positive - commenters compared it to watching Black Mirror, asked me to “do another one” next year, and requested I create a TikTok to share more educational tech content. The highest honor came from user choppedunc.67, who not only liked but saved my video - a sign of great respect in Gen Alpha culture.
What’s Next?
I don’t think we’re doomed - but we are about to be outnumbered. The cost curve on frontier intelligence is only going down. “Supply” of this kind of content is about to explode, and Janie is just an early entry in a category that’s evolving faster than the discourse around it.
In the past, AI-generated content often got attention by playing up the fact that it wasn’t real. Lil Miquela - the CGI influencer launched by Brud in 2016 - grew to millions of followers and landed campaigns with brands like Calvin Klein and Prada. Last year, Italian brainrot racked up billions of views, and thousands of parents were forced to buy real toys based on Ballerina Cappuccina (a ballerina with a coffee cup for a head) and Tralalero Tralala (a shark wearing shoes). Fruit Love Island ran an entire AI-generated reality show starring produce. People can enjoy things that are obviously AI.
Today, Janie’s viewers could answer “is she real?” by zooming in on her hands or her dresser. Soon, they may not be able to (conclusively) answer it at all. Which makes the more interesting question: does it matter?
At first glance, maybe not. Most people following Bama Rush will never meet the girls they’re rooting for; the entire relationship exists through a screen. Janie competed for attention against the real PNMs and the rest of the internet, and people still came back to see how her story ended.
But “it entertained me” can’t be the whole answer, especially if we want people to embrace these technologies. There’s a reason “AI” is so often followed by “slop.” We value creative work partly for the thing itself and partly for what we believe is behind it: someone’s thought, effort, taste and care. Concealing AI removes that context and violates an implied social contract about what we put into the world.
Janie did not generate herself. Every rumpled outfit, mistimed comment and bad decision came from a human. That makes me think disclosure may ultimately be good for AI, not just for audiences. When creators hide the tools, people experience AI as a trick. Showing the work creates the possibility of a different relationship: A person had an idea, made choices and used AI to bring it to life.
I’d happily buy a reproduction of a painting - as long as I wasn’t expecting the original.
As people get better at using these tools, I suspect "was AI involved?" will be a less useful question. The more interesting thread to pull will be what the creator did with it. AI gives people without the skills, budget, or bone structure that traditional media rewards a way to share their ideas with the world. I have to believe this is a net positive for humanity.
One last comment came in as I was finishing this piece, from loyal TikTok viewer Meg–The Elder Millennial: “I was more invested in this than any real life influencer.”
“You’re a real one, Meg,” Janie replied.
She would know.
This newsletter is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. Furthermore, this content is not investment advice, nor is it intended for use by any investors or prospective investors in any a16z funds. This newsletter may link to other websites or contain other information obtained from third-party sources - a16z has not independently verified nor makes any representations about the current or enduring accuracy of such information. If this content includes third-party advertisements, a16z has not reviewed such advertisements and does not endorse any advertising content or related companies contained therein. Any investments or portfolio companies mentioned, referred to, or described are not representative of all investments in vehicles managed by a16z; visit https://a16z.com/investment-list/ for a full list of investments. Other important information can be found at a16z.com/disclosures. You’re receiving this newsletter since you opted in earlier; if you would like to opt out of future newsletters you may unsubscribe immediately.
I had no idea what a sorority rush was. Now that I know, I don't care. The fact that many do care
is fascinating.
I find what Olivia did is actually amusing. She created a character that frankly fooled children about what children do and the Daily Mail that is written by adolescnets for the adolescent mind was fooled by it.
That's pretty funny.
Maybe you covered this, but how many of the commenters were AI too?