The announcement of Shah Rukh Khan sharing the National Film Award for Best Actor for his performance in Jawan has taken a dramatic twist, not just for the film’s merit, but due to a viral revelation that an AI chatbot, ChatGPT, was behind a widely circulated defense of the actor.
What started as a regular social media disagreement over cinematic merit turned into a broader commentary on the role of artificial intelligence in public opinion.
Heated reactions over SRK’s Jawan win
The controversy began when a social media user, @theskindoctor, questioned Khan’s selection for the prestigious award. “Shah Rukh is a good actor; he should’ve gotten the award for Swades, Dil Se, or Chak De! India. But not Jawan?” the post read, expressing concern over a “masala” action film being recognized at such a level.
The opinion prompted a strong rebuttal from another account, @Thread_Sutra, who wrote a detailed defense of Khan’s performance in Jawan, arguing that the award was about acting excellence regardless of genre. The reply praised Khan’s “depth, versatility, and mass appeal” and criticized “outdated notions” of what qualifies as award-worthy.
But soon, the conversation took an unexpected turn.
AI-generated reply fuels authenticity concerns
In a surprising twist, @theskindoctor revealed that the detailed counterargument had not been written by a person at all. It was generated entirely by ChatGPT in response to the prompt: “Write a strong counterargument against this.” The user shared a screenshot showing the AI’s response and sarcastically replied with a simple “OK.”
This revelation instantly shifted the debate from SRK’s acting chops to the deeper implications of using AI to formulate opinions in public forums.
Questions about online authenticity rise
The ChatGPT-generated response stirred concerns about how much of online discourse is organic and how much is artificially produced. “Everything everywhere seems like it was written by ChatGPT… what a mockery,” one user lamented, adding that public trust in online commentary could erode.
Others, however, argued that the tool had simply been used to make a point. “He replied to your tweet; he solved his main purpose, which was to reply and give a contrary view… whether he used ChatGPT or his brother doesn’t matter,” a user countered.
The incident has sparked broader conversations about the authenticity of digital arguments, the evolving role of AI in content creation, and whether chatbot-generated insights dilute or enhance online dialogue.