A surge of artificial-intelligence-generated prank content is circulating on social media platforms, prompting concern among authorities, tech-experts and community watchers. The trend spans from alarming “home intruder” images to viral videos of non-existent disasters, all created for shock value and engagement.

One of the most widely reported examples is the so-called “AI Homeless Man Prank,” which has seen users digitally alter images or videos to appear as if a gaunt, homeless individual has broken into a family’s home. The images, often shared via platforms like TikTok and Instagram, prompt frightened reactions - including calls to emergency services. 

In another large-scale example, multiple clips purporting to show flooding, sharks in hotel pools and destroyed airports in Jamaica following Hurricane Melissa increasingly appeared online. Most were later confirmed to be entirely made with AI tools. 

Why it’s becoming so widespread

Several factors contribute to the proliferation of these prank-style AI videos and images:

• Easier tools: The availability of generative AI tools (text-to-video, image-to-video, deepfake apps) means non-technical users can create plausible but false content. For example, AI-video generator tools have been used to simulate disaster scenes. 

• Perverse incentives: Engagement metrics on social platforms reward sensational content. One AI expert noted many of the hurricane deepfakes weren’t politically motivated but aimed at clicks and views. 

• Blurred authenticity: AI-generated content is increasingly hard to distinguish from genuine recordings, especially when layered into real footage or mixed with actual disaster events. 

Real-world consequences

The prank-AI phenomenon is not harmless fun. It carries tangible impacts:

• Emergency services in countries such as Ireland have been alerted after users sent fake AI-images of home intruders to relatives, prompting police deployment. 

• Public trust is eroding: as fake content becomes more convincing, people may doubt real warnings or footage, reducing responsiveness during genuine crises.

• The mental-health and ethical toll: victims of pranks can experience trauma from fear induced by the fake content; creators may face legal consequences.

• The broader disinformation dimension: while some content is “just” pranks, the same tools and methods can scale into malicious deepfake campaigns. 

What to watch

• Whether platforms tighten enforcement against synthetic prank content and deploy better detection mechanisms.

• Legal responses: we may see new legislation or regulation aimed at non-consensual creation and distribution of AI prank content.

• Public awareness and media literacy: the ability for users to recognise AI-generated manipulation is becoming a key resilience factor in the information ecosystem.

• The evolution of pranks into more malicious or politically exploitative AI content as creators realise the viral potential.

What may appear as attention-grabbing pranks are part of a larger shift: generative AI is flooding social media not only with laugh-or-shock content but with material that undermines the line between reality and fabrication. As these pranks grow in sophistication and reach, platforms, policymakers and users alike must adapt.