A 22-year-old medical student in India built a fake AI conservative influencer and made thousands of dollars a month from American men. He says he has no regrets.

Going by the pseudonym Sam, the aspiring doctor was broke and behind on his medical licensing exam fees when he came up with the idea. What followed became one of the most talked-about AI influence operations of the year.

He created Emily Hart, a fictional 22-year-old registered nurse styled after a well-known Hollywood actress, who loved guns, posted American flags, and leaned into conservative political content. Every day, Sam wrote pro-Christian, pro-gun, anti-immigration posts. Within a month, the account had over 10,000 Instagram followers.

Sam discovered that even when people came to argue, the algorithm treated the engagement as a win, which pushed the account to more users. The operation ran for months before Instagram flagged it.

The case has raised serious questions about AI-generated influencers, political rage-bait content, and how slowly platforms enforce disclosure rules. Sam called his followers unaware. He said he was making good money. And he stated he feels no remorse whatsoever.

Here’s what caught my attention: Who do you think bears the most responsibility here? The person who built it? The platform that let it run for months? Or the followers who never questioned whether they were interacting with a real person?

I see merit in holding all three accountable in different ways. The creator knowingly built a deception operation. The platform has tools and resources to catch this stuff faster. And the audience, well, that’s trickier. People want to trust what they see online. That’s not dumb on their part, just how we’re wired.

What’s your take on it?

I mean, let’s be real here, some of us are fools and react and believe anything we see online.