Humans are imperfect. We age, gain weight, develop wrinkles, have bad hair days, and sometimes simply look a little tired. This is normal. However, social media has gradually turned normal, human imperfection into something many people feel compelled to hide. Now artificial intelligence is taking that pressure to another level. Across Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and other platforms, users are experimenting with AI-generated and AI-enhanced versions of themselves. The trends change quickly: Studio Ghibli-style portraits, AI action figures, vintage 1960s and 1970s portraits, retro saree transformations, hyper-realistic 3D avatars, and increasingly sophisticated “you in another era” images. In 2025, Ghibli-style portraits and AI action figures became particularly common examples of how quickly AI image generation can become a social-media phenomenon. The attraction to using AI is obvious. AI can make a person appear younger, smoother, slimmer, better dressed, or impossibly polished. The danger begins when the edited version becomes more desirable than the real person. This is where hyperreality becomes increasingly relevant: a digital version of reality that can become so attractive and convincing that people begin comparing their real lives with an artificial one. This is not merely a visual trend. AI-generated voices, videos, and images are also expanding rapidly. HubSpot’s 2025 Global Social Media Trends research found that among respondents using generative AI for social-media content, 53% used visual AI tools, while 42% used audio AI tools such as voice or music generators. Short-form video and images were among the most common types of content created with generative AI. Other research shows how rapidly synthetic media is entering online spaces. An OECD analysis found that media-reported incidents involving synthetic media—AI-generated or manipulated images, video, and voice—increased 2.5 times between 2022 and 2025. This accounted for more than 14% of recorded AI incidents and hazards by the third quarter of 2025. The obsession with artificial intelligence is not limited to Gen Z. Older generations are also increasingly engaging with AI. AARP reports that generative-AI use among Americans aged 50 and above increased from 18% in 2024 to 30% in 2025. A University of Michigan survey also found that 55% of adults aged 50 and above had used speech- or text-based AI, with 11% saying they had used it to generate text or images. The issue becomes more serious when AI-enhanced appearances start affecting self-esteem. A 2026 study published in the Journal of Consumer Behaviour, involving 468 users, found that AI beauty-filter use was associated with lower body-image satisfaction and diminished appearance self-esteem. Another 2025 study on TikTok facial filters identified associations between filter use, facial dissatisfaction, and body-image concerns. For young people, the consequences are particularly significant. Ideally, A teenager or young adult should spend energy developing skills, building relationships, studying, working, creating, and discovering who they are. Instead, hours disappear into photographing, editing, regenerating, comparing, and reposting. Using AI for fun is not the problem. There is nothing wrong with turning yourself into an action figure or imagining yourself in a vintage photograph. The problem begins when the edited self becomes the ideal self. A generation constantly exposed to flawless faces may eventually find ordinary human faces unacceptable—including their own. The answer is not to reject AI. It is keeping AI in its proper place. Use the technology. Experiment with it. Have fun with it. But do not let an algorithm become the editor of your self-worth. It’s okay to post imperfect photographs sometimes. Leave the wrinkle. Keep the grey hair. Accept the humanity. Your real face does not need to compete with an algorithm.
By Suzzy Majumder
We have all heard the phrase “diversity is a strength.” But what happens when a hate incident targets a community in a city where that very identity is deeply rooted? In Glendale, California, a recent incident suggests that the phrase is only as strong as the accountability behind it. Armenian identity has a longstanding presence in Glendale, dating back to the early 1900s. Today the city is home to one of the largest Armenian populations in the United States, with Armenian churches, schools, businesses, and cultural organizations woven into its everyday life. As an ethnic minority in the United States, Armenian-Americans are able to thrive in their cultural identity within Glendale, where their culture, language, and traditions remain visible and are preserved across generations. Yet even in a city where Armenian identity is so firmly recognized — arguably a staple of the city itself — anti-Armenian hostility still finds ways to surface. In late August of this year, fliers designed to resemble folded $100 bills were found containing derogatory anti-Armenian language. One side displayed the slur “STUPIDIANS,” with the letters colored in red, blue, and orange — the colors of the Armenian flag. The materials were made to look like money, inviting unsuspecting residents and children to pick them up, only to reveal the message: “THIS IS AMERICA NOT STUPID ARMENIA.” As the Armenian National Committee of America’s (ANCA) Glendale chapter and local Armenian-American news outlets put so eloquently, this was not the first anti-Armenian incident to occur in the region — Armenian churches, community institutions, and schools have also been targeted before, raising concerns that this type of hostility is not entirely isolated. The location and timing made this incident particularly troubling. The materials were distributed throughout the residential neighborhood surrounding Glenoaks Elementary School — an elementary school where children as young as five years old are still developing the fundamental skills they need to understand and navigate the world around them. A folded bill on a sidewalk is easy for a child to pick up. The colors come to their eyes first — red, blue, orange. Then the words form. Their small hands go still, and their curious mind goes blank. The walk home continues, a little quieter than before. That same week, the Glendale Unified School District launched the nation’s first Western Armenian Dual Language Immersion Program at Glenoaks — a milestone for the preservation of Western Armenian language and culture for future generations. While a historic step was being taken toward preserving Armenian culture in America, messages were circulating designed to disparage that same culture just streets away. Beyond the symbolism of these two events unfolding in the same week, the deeper concern is how Armenian children may come to view their own heritage. What about Armenian residents who have called Glendale home for generations? What about the parents whose children may be exposed to messages like this on their walk to school? What about non-targeted communities who witness hatred directed at a community that is part of their own city? Incidents like this one shape how families, neighbors, and the broader community come to understand the safety of the city they reside in. This is where the comforting language of inclusion runs into a harder question. In recent years, a particular emphasis has been placed on cultural diversity — the idea that differences are what bring a society together, and that everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, is meant to be included and accepted. So when the Armenian-American community is targeted in Glendale, that language falls apart; the phrase “diversity is a strength” starts to feel less like a value and more like a slogan. Is it really a strength if one of the communities that makes Glendale so diverse can still be targeted with slur-filled fliers scattered near an elementary school? The answer depends less on the phrase itself than on what the community does after an incident like this — and that is the real measure of whether “diversity is a strength” means anything at all. If the Armenian-American community is to feel that its culture is truly valued, acts of hate against that culture must be met with accountability. When previous incidents go without meaningful consequences, it sends the message that this behavior carries little risk — which only makes future incidents easier to repeat. Real accountability starts with documenting hate incidents, investigating them, identifying those responsible, and making clear that targeted communities are not expected to simply absorb repeated hostility. But accountability does not come from institutions alone — it depends just as much on the people within the community. Individuals have a responsibility to address hostility, even when it is not directed at them personally. See discriminatory fliers scattered on the ground? Report them. Hear derogatory language? Speak out. Witness someone being targeted because of their ethnicity? Refuse to stay silent. Residents can also refuse to let an incident die down once the initial outrage fades — by continuing to ask about the investigation, supporting organizations that document hate incidents, and pushing local leaders to explain what steps are being taken to prevent similar acts. Non-Armenian residents have just as much of a role in this response as Armenian residents do. When people speak up for a community other than their own, they make it clear that prejudice is not merely the problem of the group being targeted — it is a problem for the entire city. That principle extends far beyond Glendale. This same principle drove Martin Niemöller to write so starkly: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.” Individuals
By Maya Balmanukyan
Artificial Intelligence has become nearly impossible to avoid. It writes emails, generates images, answers questions, and is increasingly being integrated into the technology people use every day. But as AI becomes more powerful, some of the people closest to its development are sounding the alarm. Recent warnings from AI researchers and industry leaders have reignited concerns about what could happen as these systems become more autonomous, capable, and difficult to control. While predictions of an AI-driven catastrophe may sound extreme, the controversy raises an uncomfortable question: If the people building this technology are warning society about where it could lead, how seriously should we be listening? These concerns became much harder to dismiss when they began coming directly from inside the companies developing some of the world’s most advanced AI systems. On September 8th, Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned after spending three years at both Anthropic and OpenAI. In announcing his resignation, Coxon accused the companies of racing toward self-improving artificial intelligence without adequately addressing what could happen if humans eventually lose control. He warned that the people developing these systems genuinely believe AI could threaten humanity’s survival by the end of the decade. What made Coxon’s warning particularly alarming, however, was that he was not alone. Evam Hubinger, an alignment science lead at Anthropic whose work focuses on ensuring AI systems remain aligned with human goals, publicly supported Coxon’s concerns. Hubinger said he believes there is a greater than 10% chance that AI could kill all humans within the next decade and acknowledged that researchers still lack a clear solution for safely controlling a future superintelligent system. The growing concern surrounding artificial intelligence has not gone unnoticed by world leaders. The United Nations has already begun pushing for greater international cooperation on AI governance, bringing governments, researchers and technology companies together to discuss how increasingly powerful systems should be monitored and regulated. The goal seems simple: establish safeguards before AI develops beyond humanity’s ability to control it effectively. However, regulating artificial intelligence may be far more complicated than simply agreeing that the technology needs guardrails. AI development has increasingly become a geopolitical competition, particularly between the United States and China. In many ways, the race resembles the 20th-century Space Race. This time, it is not about reaching the moon first, but about which country can develop the world’s most advanced artificial intelligence. Slowing development could give researchers more time to understand AI’s potential dangers, but it could also let a geopolitical rival move ahead. The result is a dangerous dilemma: how do countries agree to slow down a technology when none of them can be certain their competitors will do the same? Whether artificial intelligence will ever become powerful enough to pose an existential threat to humanity remains impossible to know. Predictions about where AI could be by the end of the decade are exactly that: predictions. But when researchers working directly on some of the world’s most advanced AI systems begin warning that the technology could become dangerous, their concerns should not simply be dismissed. The challenge now is deciding what comes next. Governments may introduce regulations, companies may strengthen their safeguards, and international organizations may push for greater cooperation, but none of those efforts eliminate the competition driving AI development forward. As the United States, China, and technology companies race to build increasingly capable systems, slowing down may feel like falling behind. Yet continuing without adequate safeguards carries its own risks. We may not know exactly where artificial intelligence is taking us, but the people helping build that future are telling us to pay attention. It is time we start listening.
By Alan Jimenez
Follow Us