The Right Thing

Sunday, September 20, 2026

Is it OK to create a photo that never happened?

After the recent deaths of several well-known celebrities, some people began to post AI-generated photographs of themselves sitting or standing next to those celebrities. Presumably, these posts were made in good fun. But does it cross a line to manufacture images where viewers could be confused about whether the incident truly happened?

The temptation to create such posts is understandable. Why not create an image of an actor, musician, athlete or political figure you always admired if you’d never had a chance to actually meet them? Whom does it hurt? The celebrity is dead. You know the photo isn’t real and your friends and loved ones likely know it isn’t real either.

But what about everyone else who may see your post online?

For most of our lives we could count on a photograph to be strong evidence that something actually occurred. If someone showed you a photo of the two of you or a group of you together, you’d have little reason to doubt you’d actually been there even if the photo was from a long time ago and your memory is fuzzy on the particulars.

Granted, it’s always been possible to manipulate photographs. Some get staged. Others get cropped. Still others get manipulated to make things look different from what actually was being photographed. Doing so used to take a bit of effort. Readily available AI platforms have made doing so much easier. We can now create images of ourselves with someone we never met in less time than it takes to read their obituary.

Such creative license doesn’t always result in misleading results. If I were to create a photo of myself handing George Washington notes prior to his first inaugural address, few would suspect that encounter actually happened.

But what if the person in the AI-generated photograph is someone I could actually have met and I make the photo look like it’s an event that actually could have happened? What if I add the caption: “I’ll always remember meeting you”?

While I might want the photo to suggest how much I admired the person, someone who doesn’t know me might assume I’d actually met the person. I’ve ended up creating something that results in someone believing something happened that isn’t true.

Back in 2018, I wrote about whether we should ask someone's permission before posting a photograph of that person online. My thinking was that just because I don't mind having my photograph posted doesn't mean I get to make that decision for someone else.

If I create a photograph of myself with someone who has died, in addition to choosing to use my own image, I am using another person's likeness (obviously without their permission) to create an event that never occurred.

There’s a difference between using AI to create photos that are meant to be amusing. But if an image is likely to be mistaken for a photograph of something that really happened, the right thing is to let people know that it didn’t. Whether it’s by indicating the photo is AI-generated or including a note that the photo represents wishful thinking rather than reality might lessen the chance that viewers would mistake it for something that really happened. But it would go a long way toward being more truthful.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

Sunday, September 13, 2026

When should we correct someone?

When is correcting someone the right thing, and when is it just another way of trying to prove you're right about something?

Back in December 2024, I wrote a Right Thing column about listening before interrupting. When I was in high school, I interrupted my physics teacher to tell him he was wrong. He explained I was not only wrong about the physics, but also wrong to interrupt him before he had finished speaking. The lesson that stuck with me was that before rushing to correct someone, it’s important to listen to make sure you understand what the person is saying.

Listening, however, doesn't mean we should never correct anyone. In August 2025, I wrote a column about an error I made during a podcast interview. I had referred to the FCC when I meant the FAA. Few listeners likely noticed, and my mistake didn't change the point I was making. Still, I contacted the interviewer and acknowledged my error in my column. If I expect people to check what I say, I should also be willing to make a correction when I get something wrong.

Which is more important? To listen first, or to correct the error? Sometimes the answer depends on what happens if we don’t.

If a friend told me that "Die Hard" was released in 1987 and I knew it was actually released in 1988, there may be little reason to interrupt the conversation to correct him. If someone mispronounces my name, correcting them may be helpful. If someone posts a false accusation about another person, it becomes more important to say something. If someone shares misinformation that could cause physical or financial harm, not saying anything to avoid appearing rude is hardly the right thing to do.

Even when a correction is appropriate, how we correct someone matters.

Telling someone that you believe they might be mistaken about a fact is different from simply declaring, “You’re wrong.” The first approach might open up a conversation. The second can easily turn a disagreement in which each person feels compelled to be right and prove the other person wrong.

Many of us encounter wrong statistics, misidentified photographs, made-up quotations, and things generated by AI that we know aren’t true. It’s near impossible to correct every error that crosses our way. We also shouldn’t assume that because something sounds wrong to us, it is wrong. My December column reminded me that certainty can be flawed. My August column reminded me that checking facts is everyone's responsibility, including mine.

The right thing may be to ask three questions before correcting someone: How certain am I that I am right? Who could be harmed if the error goes uncorrected? Can I correct something without making my effort seem like it’s just me needing to be right and someone else wrong?

Sometimes we correct because we believe another person would benefit from receiving the information. Sometimes we correct solely because we enjoy being the person who knows something that others don’t. Being right isn’t the same as being obliged to prove someone else is wrong.

We should listen. We should check facts. And sometimes we should say something out loud when someone’s facts are off. Even after doing all three of these things, we would do well to realize that being right doesn’t mean we always have to have the last word.

Sunday, September 06, 2026

Just because you’re entitled to it doesn’t mean you should get it

How should a reader balance her desire to get what she’s paid for even if she has no plans to use what she paid for and knows that it could become a nuisance to her neighbor and an unsightly addition to her yard?

In a midwestern city of roughly 80,000 people, residents are charged about $4 a month on their utility bill for curbside organics recycling, or composting. Each household has to sign up to receive a wheeled collection cart for their compost, but not for the fee. The fee gets assigned to every household whether they ask for it to be or not.

A resident we’re calling Chloe doesn’t plan to use the composting cart but doesn’t like that she’s being charged for the service and won’t get the cart she’s entitled to, so she signed up to get a cart. Once she received it, she realized that she really has no place to store it that won’t be inconvenient or unsightly for her or her neighbors. The trash and recycling bins already take up any space available in her garage. If she puts the composting cart on the side of her house, her neighbors have to stare at it from their windows.

She asks if it’s wrong to put the cart out on the side of her house where it might annoy her neighbors. What’s the right thing to do?

It’s reasonable for Chloe to believe she should receive the composting cart because she, like everyone else, is paying $4 a month for it. But getting the cart just because she’s entitled to it and then not using it creates more problems.

If Chloe has no intention of composting, it doesn’t make sense for her to keep it simply because she paid the fee. Keeping the cart is a nuisance for her and a potential eyesore for her neighbors, who now have to live with the consequences of a choice Chloe made that serves no real purpose for her.

Chloe should try to find a place to keep the cart out of sight of her neighbors and consider using it for what it was intended. Her neighbors shouldn’t be forced to become unwilling participants in Chloe’s composting fee protest. She could end up finding herself a convert to the wisdom of composting rather than resenting the cart as a symbol of a fee she resents paying.

If Chloe is determined not to use the cart and can’t find a place to store it, she should call the city and ask if the cart can be retrieved. Sometimes doing the right thing means recognizing that getting what you're entitled to isn't always the same as doing what you're entitled to do. If she doesn’t like the policy, Chloe can ask the city to change it or ask that every household should automatically receive a cart. Until the policy changes, the right thing is for Chloe to find a place to store or use the cart or return it to the city.

Sunday, August 30, 2026

Is your authentic self a jerk?

Should you encourage someone to be their "authentic self" if you know the person is authentically selfish, dismissive, condescending and often just an authentically unpleasant person?

A reader we're calling Lily wrote about her friend who asked her advice on how he could become his more authentic self. Lily gathered that her friend had been reading about the importance of authenticity in the workplace to advance his career and wanted to try it. After he asked Lily her advice, however, she hesitated because she knew if her friend truly revealed his authentic self, others might see how self-absorbed and dismissive he could be. Lily suspects her friend wants to be perceived as having better character traits. She wonders how honest she should be in giving him advice on being more authentic.

I understand Lily's hesitation. While she might be in the habit of encouraging friends to be themselves, she doesn’t want to encourage a friend to impose a version of himself on others that makes life unpleasant for them.

"Authenticity" is one of those concepts that, like many ideas that become popular in management writing, can morph into empty jargon. Authenticity just means something is genuine. Being authentic doesn’t guarantee kindness, self-awareness or good character.

Someone can be authentically selfish or condescending. Being genuine doesn't make those behaviors admirable.

Striving to be authentic also doesn’t automatically translate into honest behavior. If Lily's friend is trying to manufacture an "authentic" persona because he thinks it will help him advance in his career, he's on shaky ground. Faking authenticity is fundamentally dishonest.

What should Lily do?

She should ask her friend what exactly he is trying to achieve. If he's willing to be specific, Lily can offer honest advice about those goals.

Does he want to become a better manager, have more productive relationships with colleagues, earn trust, or advance in his career? Those are concrete things Lily can discuss with him.

Her advice might include leveling with him that some of his behavior might be getting in his way. If he wants to be a better manager, for example, dismissing other people's ideas isn't a sign of strength. If he wants colleagues to trust him, being self-absorbed makes that harder.

Lily doesn’t need to tell her friend not to be himself. But she can help him distinguish between his personality and his behavior.

Her friend isn’t alone in having traits that we might not want to over-emphasize at work. If we’re an impatient person, that doesn’t mean we should interrupt others during a meeting. If we fancy ourselves a straight talker, that doesn’t require us to be cruel in our assessment of others. If Lily advises her friend to listen better or reconsider some of his less-appealing behaviors, she isn’t advising him to be fake. Instead, she may be pointing out that self-control and consideration can be more valuable than authenticity in the workplace.

Instead of telling her friend how to become more authentic, Lily should help him figure out what his goals are and what he might actually want to change about his behavior. If he still wants her opinion she should be honest and offer her advice on what she believes he might do to get where he wants to go. Instead of helping others become more authentic, sometimes the right thing might be to help them become someone who other people are glad to have around.

Sunday, August 23, 2026

Should you ask a professional for free advice?

Is it OK to ask a professional for free advice?

Several months ago, I asked our contractor for advice. He had installed new windows, and enough time had passed that they needed washing. They were the type of windows you tip in for easy cleaning on the outside. Most worked fine and were cleaned without incident. But when I got to the large kitchen window and tipped it back up to lock into place, it wouldn’t stay in place.

I texted our contractor, told him about the situation, and asked whether I might have broken something in my effort to clean the windows. “Unlikely,” he responded. He called and told me that the mechanism on the side of the window had likely come unfixed. He told me how to reconnect it, and in less than two minutes everything was back to normal. I had been prepared to ask him to come to the house to work on the repair, but he took the time to walk me through the fix.

Granted these were new windows that he had installed so it was unlikely he would have charged me if he had to come to the house. But the incident reminded me of questions I regularly receive from readers about whether we should pay professionals for their advice.

Sometimes, it’s asking a doctor for medical advice. Occasionally, it’s asking a therapist for advice about a child’s behavior. In my case, it’s often someone asking me to look at something they’ve written to offer advice on improving it.

Is it OK for someone to ask you for your professional advice without offering to compensate you? Is it OK for you to ask someone else for their professional advice without offering to compensate them?

The answer depends on what’s being asked and how much time the professional is likely to spend helping out.

Asking a quick question is fine. Asking them to do work that is typically part of their job is not. If, for example, I ask my accountant if an expense is deductible, she doesn’t expect compensation. If, however, I ask her to review my grandson’s tax return, I should expect to pay her for her time.

If a friend or neighbor has an occasional question, that too is fine. But if the questions keep coming, that crosses the line from a favor to unpaid work.

If you’re asking for advice, you can ask the person if they typically charge for such advice. That allows the professional a chance to respond without having to awkwardly bring up money.

It’s also OK to set boundaries when you’re the one being asked for advice. It’s reasonable to say you can answer a simple question but that a more complicated one may require hiring you or someone else.

My contractor had once asked me if he could have some old storm door windows I had stored in my basement that he used for his vegetable garden. I rounded them up and told him to take as many as he wanted. He hadn't asked for payment for the advice I asked him, but making this small gesture as a thank you for his time and wisdom seemed the right thing to do.

Sunday, August 16, 2026

Colleges Should Disclose Any AI Use in Admissions

Should colleges tell applicants when they use artificial intelligence as part of their admissions process?

A reader we're calling Seshat wrote wondering whether colleges are wrong to use AI as part of the admissions process while forbidding applicants from using AI to write their application essays. If colleges expect students to submit work that reflects their own thinking and writing, Seshat asked, shouldn't colleges be expected to do the same? At the very least, Seshat wondered, shouldn't colleges disclose when they use AI in admissions?

Some colleges are increasingly using AI as part of the application process. Associated Press writer Jocelyn Gecker recently reported that colleges including Virginia Tech, the California Institute of Technology, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have used or plan to use artificial intelligence as part of their admissions process. Some colleges have disclosed AI's role. Others have not. Many colleges, however, explicitly prohibit applicants from using AI to produce their admissions essays.

After Alice Scott, a reporter for the Daily Tar Heel, the student newspaper at UNC Chapel Hill, reported that the university used AI to evaluate applicants' grammar and writing, applicants, students and parents were critical. The editorial board wondered if applicants could be confident in the process. Administrators later updated the admissions website to explain that while AI provided some data on essays and transcriptions, only human evaluators would make the admissions decisions.

Since some admissions offices review thousands of applications each year, AI can be useful to organize materials and note if applications are incomplete. That could give human beings more time to evaluate each application.

But such administrative uses are different from allowing AI to evaluate the quality of essays or predict an applicant’s likelihood of being a good fit. Relegating such judgments to AI undercuts the ability of a human being to capture the nuance of each application. If college administrators move in this direction, they should ask themselves what if any value they bring to the process. They also owe it to applicants to disclose if AI is being used to decide their admission rather than a human being.

Colleges expect applicants to be honest about any work they submit as part of their application. Many insist any essays are produced entirely by the applicant without AI help. That’s a reasonable expectation, but applicants should expect the same of the institutions to which they are applying. Colleges should explain whether AI is used, what role it plays, and whether human admissions officers have ultimate decision-making responsibility. They should also make clear the safeguards used to minimize errors.

Some institutions already do this. All of them should.

AI can make aspects of the admissions process more efficient. But applicants are right in wanting to know how AI is being used to determine their prospects.

Colleges aren’t obligated to admit every applicant. They should, however, be clear in how they are conducting evaluations of applicants. When AI is used to evaluate applicants, the right thing is to say so.