This year’s Super Bowl saw a misstep with AI-generated advertisements.

It seems that this year’s Super Bowl ad spots featuring generative AI missed the mark in showcasing the technology as something genuinely useful or exciting. While we’ve seen AI-generated commercials in the past, this year’s event felt flooded with them. The surge can be attributed to advancements in image and video generation models over the last year. Although these models still lag behind human creativity, they’ve improved enough for many brands to feel comfortable associating their names with AI-generated content.

Using generative AI is also significantly cheaper and faster, which is a big draw when 30-second ad slots at the Super Bowl cost between $8–$10 million. In previous years, the investment in traditional ad production was evident, resulting in commercials that felt premium compared to typical TV spots. However, this year, many ads came off as cheap and poorly executed.

Take the Artlist ad, for example. This ad, which aired only in New York and Los Angeles, promotes the idea that anyone can create Super Bowl-worthy footage using Artlist’s production tools. They even boasted about securing their Super Bowl spot just a week prior and producing the ad in only five days. That might sound impressive, but the final product didn’t inspire confidence in potential users. Instead of a cohesive and engaging narrative, the ad is a disjointed collection of short clips featuring animals doing bizarre things, all tied together with a voice-over. It lacks innovation and feels more like a warning about the pitfalls of AI-generated content rather than a promise of creativity.

Vodka brand Svedka also jumped into the generative AI pool by reviving its Fembot CGI character and introducing a new male-presenting companion, Brobot, in a commercial largely created with AI. While Fembot has been part of Svedka’s branding, Brobot seems to borrow heavily from the character Sonny from the film *I, Robot*. Sazerac’s chief marketing officer mentioned that the use of AI didn’t save much time or money; rather, they believed the AI aesthetic resonated with their brand and conveyed a pro-human message.

The ad’s premise is straightforward: two robots arrive at a club, dispense vodka from their bodies, and get drunk among a crowd of awkwardly dancing, AI-generated humans. The idea is that alcohol helps these machines embrace their human side. However, the standout moment is when Brobot malfunctions after drinking, causing vodka to spill out because its mouth isn’t designed to handle liquids. While Sazerac claims this was intentional, it resembles the kind of accidental glitches often seen in AI-generated content. This portrayal doesn’t align with the typical messaging of alcohol brands, and it raises questions about the effectiveness of using AI in advertising.

The skepticism surrounding generative AI’s production quality is palpable, making it a risky choice for brands this year. Viewers are quick to attribute any awkward visuals to AI, even when poor editing might be the real culprit.

One of the more notable ads featured a Jurassic Park theme for a network, showcasing digitally de-aged versions of Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum. While some viewers criticized the CGI for looking like “AI slop,” the visual effects were actually crafted by experienced studios known for their work in de-aging actors.

Dunkin’s ad also faced scrutiny regarding potential AI involvement. The “Good Will Dunkin’” commercial featured de-aged versions of stars like Ben Affleck and Jennifer Aniston, but the overly smooth skin and unnatural facial movements sparked debate about whether AI was used to achieve their youthful appearances. The ad went viral for prompting discussions about AI in Super Bowl commercials, but those conversations rarely centered on coffee or pastries.

While machine learning techniques are often part of creating CGI effects, they typically involve creative software rather than the text-to-video models associated with generative AI.

AI has even crept into brand rivalries, as seen in a Pepsi Zero Sugar ad featuring a CGI polar bear, traditionally a Coca-Cola mascot, grappling with its preference for Pepsi. The ad ends with the message that consumers “deserve taste,” possibly a jab at Coca-Cola’s controversial AI-generated holiday ads. Pepsi’s marketing VP emphasized the importance of a human touch in their ad, suggesting that unlike Coca-Cola, they are not relying on AI. However, the association with the “animals doing weird stuff” trope, poorly executed by Artlist, raises eyebrows.

This wave of generative AI ads aimed to normalize the technology, but the true goal of a successful Super Bowl ad is to create a positive cultural moment associated with the product. Instead, viewers are left questioning the quality and authenticity of the content: Is it AI? Does it just look like AI? Does it even matter anymore?