Consequences and AI

TL;DR: You're on the hook for AI's bad advice. A letter from Ryan Arnold.

A Chicago Tribune letter argues that while AI can produce fluent communications, it cannot assess context, consequence, or institutional risk. In public relations, judgment, not language alone, protects credibility. AI amplifies the thinking behind the prompt, and accountability for any message still rests with the people who choose to use it. -Ryan Arnold

Letter to the Editor: Consequences and AI

By Ryan Arnold

February 18, 2026 5:00 AM 

A growing number of people are turning to artificial intelligence systems for communications advice, relying on them for routine workplace messaging and moments of public controversy. Those choices fall squarely within the realm of public relations, which is the work of managing reputation, stakeholder trust and institutional risk. There is a misunderstanding of public relations and the limits of AI.

Public relations is not writing alone or marketing copy dressed up as strategy. In practice, effective communications require careful judgment about timing, audience, power dynamics and consequences before a single sentence is released. Those judgments determine whether a message builds credibility or creates exposure.

Large language models are adept at producing fluent language. That fluency can sound authoritative, even though AI is not assessing context or consequence. It refines the thinking it receives and presents it in polished form. When the strategy is weak or the prompt given AI reflects inexperience, the output delivers the same flaws — in more persuasive language. AI amplifies the judgment behind the prompt.

I have seen AI-generated crisis advice presented in polished, decisive language that encouraged organizations to emphasize the most sensitive aspects of a controversy rather than defuse them. In the same materials, the guidance recommended contradictory steps that left the narrative to others. I have also seen AI-generated policy analyses presented as research-driven work despite lacking original research. If such guidance circulates as expert judgment, those relying on it may be held to standards they are not prepared to meet.

Communications errors rarely disappear. Once a statement goes public, it drives coverage, fuels internal unrest and forces leadership into reactive mode. Time that should be spent advancing the work gets diverted to managing fallout.

AI does not bear responsibility for outcomes. It produces language, but the decision to use that language belongs to people, and accountability follows that decision. Used thoughtfully, it can help organize ideas, draft early language and support internal collaboration, but final decisions must remain with the people who understand the stakes.

Public relations depends on judgment exercised under scrutiny. When trust is on the line, speed without accountability creates lasting consequences. Repairing the damage often costs more than careful review at the outset.

— Ryan Arnold, public relations strategist, Chicago