Is using generative AI more acceptable when you do it yourself than when someone else does it? According to a new study from the Rotterdam School of Management, most of us think so. This episode dives into the fascinating research behind the paper “Acceptability Lies in the Eye of the Beholder”, which explores how we judge AI-assisted work differently depending on who is using the tech. The authors conducted nine studies with nearly 4,500 participants to unpack how we assess human versus AI contribution — and the results are both surprising and incredibly relevant.

At the heart of the findings is a powerful bias. People believe they use AI tools like ChatGPT as a source of inspiration, while assuming others rely on them to outsource the heavy lifting. That difference in perception has real consequences. It affects how students are evaluated, how job applicants are judged, and how AI-generated content is viewed in marketing, education, and business. This isn't just about technology, it's about human psychology and the stories we tell ourselves about fairness, effort, and ownership.

In this episode, we break down what the research uncovered, why it matters, and what it reveals about our evolving relationship with AI. Whether you’re a teacher, marketer, manager, or just curious about how AI is reshaping the rules of credit and creativity, this conversation offers insight into the silent double standards that shape our views.