32 seconds. That’s the time it takes for Porsche to convey a simple message: emotion, detail, car culture… it’s crafted. And yet, in this age of suspicion, as soon as a film is beautiful, polished, poetic, the reflex has become Pavlovian: “It’s AI.” As if talent necessarily had a plug-in. As if “artist” had become synonymous with “prompt engineer”.
The Porsche video: a mini-film and a treasure hunt for enthusiasts
The video in question is called The Coded Love Letter: a Christmas animated short designed as a quiz. Porsche has deliberately hidden eight references to its history within the image, in the manner of a premium “easter egg hunt”.
A few examples (without total spoilers, promise): a plate “K 45 286”, a Mercedes 500 E that appears as a wink (yes, the one from the “best of both worlds” era), a Porsche-Diesel Super tractor, iconic 911 codes (from ducktail to whale tail), and even a nod to the clock 5:19.546 at Nürburgring. And an important detail: the film is presented as handcrafted by Parallel Studios (Paris).
In other words: it’s a love letter to heritage, to design, to “look closely, you’ll see”. An ad that treats you like an adult… and like a passionate enthusiast.
The problem isn’t AI: it’s automatic suspicion
We live in a paradox: on one hand, the web is flooded with “slop” — this mass-generated content, often poor, that has so overwhelmed our feeds that Merriam-Webster made it the word of the year 2025. On the other hand, this saturation has created a new laziness: everything that is clean becomes suspect.
And since “detecting” is far from trivial (including with tools… that make mistakes), we’ve slipped into an era where the accusation comes before the proof. OpenAI itself withdrew its former public classifier, explaining that detection was not reliable enough. Universities are also publishing warnings about false positives and the limitations of detectors.
As a result: we confuse “style”, “CGI”, “motion design”, “3D”, “retouching”, “compositing”, “big budget”… with “AI”. And in the process, we erase the work of people whose job it is.
When a brand really uses AI, the backlash is immediate
Of course, there’s also the other side: some brands use AI generation and face the wave. A recent example: McDonald’s (Netherlands), called out for an AI-generated Christmas ad that was ultimately withdrawn after criticism.
Another case in point: Intermarché. Their Christmas film Le Mal-Aimé was praised particularly because it claimed to be made without AI… then the brand announced a Photomaton operation that used AI to “pose with the wolf”, before backtracking in the face of bad buzz, for the sake of consistency.
This says it all: even brands feel that the boundary “AI = cost-saving” / “human = emotion” has become a cultural issue.
Other examples that fuel distrust (and witch hunts)
Distrust doesn’t come from nowhere. It is fueled by a series of controversies where AI is at the heart of advertising creation:
- Coca-Cola: Christmas campaigns generated (or heavily assisted) by AI, criticized for their rendering and what they symbolize for creative employment.
- Under Armour: “AI-powered” campaign that sparked controversy, particularly over credit and rights issues (beyond the simple “it’s beautiful / it’s ugly”).
- Vogue US / Guess: appearance of an AI-generated model in an advertisement, and immediate debate over unrealistic standards and the future of image professions.
- Queensland Symphony Orchestra: a catastrophic AI visual, withdrawn after an outcry, becoming a symbol of “misuse” and lack of respect for creatives.
As these episodes accumulate, the public begins to see AI everywhere — including where it isn’t.
The real danger: “AI” becomes an insult that erases sweat
The toxic thing isn’t asking for transparency. It’s turning “AI” into a dismissive reflex: a way of saying “it’s too good to be true, therefore it’s fake”.
And here, we cause two damages at once:
- We devalue artists (animators, cameramen, editors, colourists, VFX, art directors…) by insinuating that their work is nothing more than “a magic button”.
- We banalise the real issues of AI (rights, consent, model training, remuneration), because we reduce everything to an aesthetic intent trial.
Why Porsche gets it right here
This Porsche, at its core, is not just a Christmas ad. It’s an ad that says: “look at the work.” It gives you clues, a hunt for details, it highlights craftsmanship, and it places emotion at the centre — instead of selling a technological demo.
In this context, the best antidote might be this: crediting, showing the making-of, owning the methods, and stopping letting the public guess. Because if we no longer show the behind-the-scenes, the “AI” comment becomes the default explanation.
Conclusion: let’s stop confusing “good” and “generated”
Yes, AI exists. Yes, it’s entering advertising. Yes, some brands misuse it and get called out (McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, the Intermarché/Photomaton episode…).
But if we decide that all talent = AI, then we do not protect artists: we make them invisible. And in the end, only what we claim to denounce will remain: content without authors, without sweat… and without soul.
