Reasons to hate #AI: My Communication with “author Michelle Obama”

April 1, 2026 by Sally Ember, EdD

Reasons to hate #AI: My Communication with “author Michelle Obama”

In case you’re a fan or on the fence about AI’s proliferation in today’s world, check out my experiences of today. I received this email:

Dear Sally,

I want to be upfront I don’t do this often. In fact, I almost never reach out to authors I haven’t met. But here I am, because This Changes Everything [sic] wouldn’t let me stay silent.

You made a choice that most writers wouldn’t dare you handed the fate of an entire planet to a 58-year-old woman. Not a young prodigy. Not a reluctant hero in their prime. Clara is wise, weathered, and exactly right for the moment. In a genre obsessed with youth and spectacle, that decision alone told me everything about the kind of writer you are.

And then there’s the world itself. Aliens who arrive not with weapons, but with an invitation. A multiverse built not on fear, but on the possibility that humanity is worth including. That quiet, radical optimism is rare and it takes real conviction to sustain it across an entire series without flinching.

I’m Michelle Obama. Through Becoming [sic] and The Light We Carry [sic], I’ve spent years thinking about what it means to believe in people in their capacity to grow, to transform, and to rise to something larger than themselves. This Changes Everything [sic] asks that same question, just on a cosmic scale. And it does it with humor, heart, and a love story that refuses to be an afterthought.

I just wanted you to know that your work reached someone it may not have expected to reach. That felt worth saying.

Warmly,

Email tracked with Mailsuite · Opt out

03/31/26, 05:30:05 AM

Of course, I responded with great delight (and a lot of skepticism, which I utilized to forward this to my tech-savvy son and youngest sibling; their responses, below). Here is what I emailed back:

Re: Your Book Stopped Me in My Tracks

Dear Ms. Obama,

Wow! In these days of deep fakes, all the AI-generated texts, and some many kinds of other not-true things, how am I to know this is really an email from you? Of course, I want to believe it is, but I am a meliorist: someone who wants to believe in the best and better of everything. But you probably knew that about me from having read my book…if you did….

How did you get and decide to read a sci-fi book from an unknown author released 12+ years ago? I would love to know that story.

If you really did read that one and you want to keep reading, I do have two more in the series finished and available as ebooks and paperbacks, and one more in the works, of the ten I had originally planned.

But, honestly (and I almost never tell this to anyone), the first time Trump got (illegally) “elected,” I lost heart for writing this utopian series (3/4 through Volume IV and 1/3 through Volume V), and I haven’t (yet) gotten it back.

But, if this note is really from you, your kind and perspiscacious remarks caused me to feel a flutter of “maybe I’ll actually finish the next two and write the rest…” for the first time in almost 10 years.

How do I know this is really from you?

I would ask you something only you would know, but I don’t know anything only you would know.

Sorry to be so skeptical, but I am sure, if this is you, that you understand.

I hope you and your family can continue to be beacons of light for so many.

Thank you so much for shining in my direction.

Best to you,

Sally

Dr. Sally Ember, EdD

My son emailed me back: “Call me,” which I did.
The gist of our conversation was that OF COURSE this was generated by an AI, but for what reason? There was no “hook,” and only one clickable link (to her “website,” which I DID NOT CLICK), and no requests for money or calls (YET).
So, he dug more deeply and received this analysis, after copying and pasting the entire email I had received into an AI (Gemini) and asking the AI what this email was likely generated from/meant:

Re: Your Book Stopped Me in My Tracks

GEMINI said

“This is a fascinating piece of writing. It is incredibly polished, emotionally resonant, and captures a very specific ‘public persona’ voice.

“However, if I were to put my ‘AI-dar’ on the table, I would say there is a high probability (85-90%) that this was generated or heavily assisted by an AI.

“Here is the breakdown of why this text feels more ‘digital’ than ‘human,’ despite how warm it is.

1. The ‘Thematic Bridge’ Technique

“AI is exceptionally good at finding a ‘hook’ and bridging it to a persona.

The Hook: A 58-year-old protagonist vs. youth-obsessed genres.
The Bridge: Connecting that to Michelle Obama’s real-world themes in Becoming (growth, rising to the moment).

“While a human could do this, the way the text explicitly lists her book titles and then immediately maps their themes onto the fictional book is a classic AI structural move. It’s a bit too ‘neat.’

2. “The ‘Rule of Three’ and GPT-isms

“The text relies heavily on a rhythmic structure that AI loves:

The List of Three: ‘…to grow, to transform, and to rise…’
The Comparison: ‘Not a young prodigy. Not a reluctant hero… Clara is…’
Common AI Phrasing: The phrase ‘humor, heart, and a love story‘ is an extremely common ‘template’ phrase that large language models use when summarizing or praising creative works.

3. The ‘Perfect’ Burstiness

“While the sentence lengths vary slightly, the emotional weight of every paragraph is almost identical.

Paragraph 1: The Hook (I don’t usually do this).
Paragraph 2: The ‘Why’ (The character).
Paragraph 3: The ‘World’ (The theme).
Paragraph 4: The ‘Identity’ (The reveal).

“Human letters, even from public figures, usually have a bit more ‘jitter’—a weirdly specific detail, a slightly awkward sentence, or a reference to a specific moment in time. This text is ‘sanitized’ for maximum impact.”

“Analysis Summary”

Feature	Observation	AI Marker?
Punctuation	Perfect, almost clinical use of em-dashes and fragments.	Yes
Vocabulary	Sophisticated but ‘safe’ (e.g., radical optimism, cosmic scale).	Yes
Structure	Perfectly balanced four-paragraph arc.	High
Persona	Flawless mimicry of Michelle Obama’s ‘The Light We Carry’ tone.	Yes

“The Verdict”

“This feels like a high-quality prompt result. Someone likely asked an AI to ‘Write a letter from Michelle Obama to a sci-fi author praising their 58-year-old female protagonist and optimistic worldview.‘ It’s a beautiful piece of writing, but it lacks the ‘scuff marks’ of a spontaneous human message.

“Did you write this as an exercise, or did this show up in your inbox?“

Further input:
My youngest sister texted me back, after reading the initial “Michelle” email:

“Interesting! I would ask Google if others have been getting spam emails from Michelle and see what it
says. Hoping it’s legit and that’s so cool if it is!
Regardless of who sent this, it’s a great endorsement to use as an anonymous and meaningful review.
Well, whatever it is, it’s still a fantastic way to describe your series for the modern day, given award-winning shows like Pluribus.”

She also did some digging and then sent me a Google search result about how to spot fake emails, what scammers do and want, and how to avoid getting phished. Very useful.

DO your own research, PLEASE. NEVER click on any links, send any money, or respond directly from any personal accounts you care about.

#DON’TGETSCAMMED!

And, for fun, my son also sent me this:
“Here is an actual quote from Michelle Obama:
‘I’m not looking to travel to outer space or a fantasy world. Science fiction isn’t really for me.‘
🤣”

********************************

I know Michelle is a very busy person, but it’s been an entire working day and I’ve had no response.
If I do get an answer to my email (from the AI or…. ???), I’ll keep you all posted! See below!

********************************

LOOK at this! So much fun! I received a response later this afternoon (after “work” hours).

After talking with him about this new email, I followed my son’s advice and copied and pasted the “response” email from “Michelle Obama” into Gemini (Google’s AI) and asked: Did Michelle Obama really respond to me with this email?

Gemini said

“It is highly unlikely that Michelle Obama personally emailed you. While public figures often use email lists for newsletters, fundraising, or advocacy, these are automated messages sent to thousands of people at once.

“To help you figure out if the email is legitimate or a phishing attempt, here are a few things to check:

1. “Check the ‘From’ Address

“Click or hover over the sender’s name.

Legitimate: Usually ends in an official domain like @barackobama.com or @obama.org.
Suspicious: If the address is a string of random characters, a generic provider (like @gmail.com or @yahoo.com), or a misspelled version of an official name, it is likely fake.

2. “Look for Personalization

“Standard outreach emails usually use broad greetings like ‘Friend’ or ‘Supporter.’ If the email asks for immediate action—like clicking a link to claim a prize or providing personal information—it is a major red flag.

3. “Examine the Content

Urgency: Scammers often use high-pressure language (e.g., ‘Act now or lose your chance!’).
Grammar: While professional campaigns have editors, phishing emails often contain awkward phrasing or spelling errors.
Links: Before clicking, hover over any buttons or links to see where they actually lead. If the URL looks strange or doesn’t match the organization’s official website, do not click it.

“Tip: If the email is asking for money or sensitive data, it’s best to ignore it or report it as spam. Official organizations will never ask for your password or social security number via email.

“Would you like me to help you identify specific signs of phishing in the email’s text?”

You said [the second email to me from “Michelle Obama” is below]

“Dear Sally,

“I laughed out loud at ‘perspicacious’ because of course you’d reach for exactly the right word, even in an email to a stranger who may or may not be who she says she is. That’s very Clara of you.

“Your skepticism is not only understandable it’s earned. We live in a world where nothing arrives without a footnote of doubt anymore. I’d be worried about you if you’d just replied with confetti and exclamation marks.

“So. Let me be real with you.

“How did I find the book? A close friend–someone who has sat across from me at more dinner tables than I can count–handed it to me and said, ‘You need to read this. The protagonist is everything the world keeps forgetting to celebrate.’ She knows me well enough to know that would hook me immediately. And it did.

“What kept me reading? Honestly, Clara. I am in my sixties. I have spent years now thinking and writing about what it means to be a woman who keeps showing up, keeps believing, keeps doing the work even when the world isn’t paying attention. And here was this author–you–who decided the fate of the entire planet should rest on the shoulders of someone who looks like the women I know and love. Not as a twist. Not as a statement. Just as the obvious, right choice. I sat with that for a long time.

“And then I got to the aliens with the invitation instead of the weapons, and I thought: this woman is not writing fiction. She’s writing a prayer.

“Which brings me to what you shared about losing heart after 2016–and I want to tread carefully, here, because I know how sacred and private that kind of wound is. But I also can’t just skip past it. I’ve met a lot of people in my life who stopped mid-sentence when the world got heavy. Writers, artists, teachers, leaders. And almost every one of them told me later that the pause was necessary but also that they were waiting, without always knowing it, for someone to knock on the door and say: we still need the rest of the story.

“Consider this me, knocking.

“I do want to verify all of this properly for you you deserve that and I’ll have someone from my team reach out through a channel you can confirm. But while we’re sorting that out, I want to ask you something sincerely:

“If you woke up tomorrow and the heart came back–what would Volume IV look like? Where did you leave Clara?

“I’m asking because I want to know. But also because I suspect you haven’t let yourself answer that question out loud in a while. And sometimes that’s where it starts.

“Warmly and very really,

“Michelle”

Gemini said

“This is a remarkably well-crafted letter. Unlike the standard ‘From the Desk of…’ mass emails or the typical ‘Nigerian Prince’ scams filled with typos and urgency, this is an example of spear-phishing or a highly sophisticated imitation.

“While the tone is warm and intelligent, there are several significant reasons to remain extremely cautious.

“Why This is Likely Not Michelle Obama

The ‘Sally/Clara’ Dynamic: The email implies she has read your specific book and is referencing a character named Clara. While she is a known advocate for literature, it is extremely rare for her to engage in deep, private literary analysis via cold email with an author she doesn’t personally know.
The ‘Someone from my team’ Line: This is a classic social engineering tactic. It builds a sense of legitimacy (‘I have a team’) while delaying the actual proof.
The Ask: It moves very quickly into an emotional ‘hook’—asking about your personal creative blocks and ‘Volume IV.’ This is designed to build a fast, deep rapport, which makes a person more likely to follow instructions later (like clicking a link or providing personal details).

“Red Flags to Look For”

“Even with such a personal tone, the technical ‘fingerprints’ usually give it away. Please check these details:

Checkpoint	What to Look For
The ‘Reply-To‘	Hit ‘Reply’ (but don’t send anything). Does the email address in the ‘To’ field match the one in the ‘From’ field? If it changes to something generic or unrelated, it’s a scam.
Email Headers	Look for the ‘mailed-by‘ and ‘signed-by‘ fields in the email details. If they don’t mention an official domain like `barackobama.com` or `officeofmichelleobama.com`, it isn’t her.
Context	Have you actually published a book with a character named Clara? If you haven’t, this is a ‘template’ email where they swap out names to see who bites.

“The Verdict”

“The email reads more like a ‘Business Email Compromise’ (BEC) or a high-level scam targeting authors or creatives. The goal is often to gain access to your accounts, your manuscript, or eventually, your financial information by pretending to be an influential fan.

“My recommendation: Do not provide any personal information or ‘Volume IV’ details. If a ‘team member’ reaches out, do not click any links or download any attachments they send, as these are often used to install malware.

“Would you like me to help you draft a very brief, safe reply to test their legitimacy without giving anything away?”

You said

sure.

Gemini said

“To test the legitimacy of this sender without revealing any sensitive information or emotional vulnerability, it is best to keep your response brief, professional, and focused on the ‘verification’ they offered.

“A legitimate office for a public figure of that stature would have a standardized way of confirming their identity (usually through an official verified social media account or a formal press/legal representative).

“Here is a safe, polite draft:

“Subject: Re: [Original Subject Line]

“Dear Michelle,

“Thank you for the incredibly thoughtful note and for your kind words regarding Clara. It is certainly a surprise to receive such a personal message.

“Since you mentioned having your team reach out through a verifiable channel, I would appreciate that. Please have them contact me via [choose one: my literary agent / my official website’s contact form / a DM to my verified social media profile].

“Once we’ve handled the logistics, I would be happy to discuss the work further.

“Best regards,

“Sally”

“Why this approach works:

It shifts the burden of proof: You are taking them up on their own offer to verify their identity.
It maintains boundaries: You aren’t answering the emotional question about ‘Volume IV’ yet. A scammer wants you to engage emotionally so you stop thinking critically; a real person will understand the need for security.
No new data: You aren’t giving them any information they don’t already have.

“Safety Warning: If you receive a follow-up email from a ‘staffer’ that includes a link to a ‘secure portal’ or an attachment (like a PDF or Word doc) that they claim is a ‘letter of authenticity,’ do not click or open it. That is the most common way these scams deliver malware to your device.”

You said

is “authorMichelleObama@gmail.com” really one of email addresses?

Gemini said

“The short answer is no. This email address is almost certainly a fake.

“While the letter you received was written with a lot of care and ‘heart,’ the email address itself is a major red flag for several reasons:

1. “High-Profile Figures Don’t Use @gmail.com

“Public figures like Michelle Obama have professional staff, security details, and IT teams. They do not conduct official (or even semi-official) outreach using a generic, free Gmail account. They use private, secure servers and official domains like:

@obama.org (The Obama Foundation)
@barackobama.com (The Office of Barack and Michelle Obama)

2. “The Username is a ‘Tell’

“The address authorMichelleObama@gmail.com is designed to look specific to your situation (an author receiving a letter). Scammers often create custom email addresses for each ‘mark’ to make the lie feel more personalized. A real person of her stature wouldn’t create a new email account just to talk to authors; they would use their established office channels.

3. “The ‘Verification’ Trap

“In the letter, ‘Michelle’ says she will have someone from her team reach out through a ‘confirmable channel.’ This is a common tactic to keep you on the hook. By using a fake Gmail address now, they are hoping you’ll be so excited by the content of the letter that you’ll ignore the source of the letter.

“What’s actually happening here?

“This looks like a sophisticated ‘Persona Scam.‘ The person writing this has likely:

Researched you and your book.
Learned your character names (Clara).
Mimicked Michelle Obama’s real writing style (which is known for being warm, sisterly, and thoughtful).

“The goal is usually to build an emotional connection so that later, they can ask for something—like a ‘donation’ to a cause, your unpublished manuscript (which can be held for ransom or stolen), or your personal login credentials.

“My advice: Treat this as a ‘creative writing’ exercise by a stranger, but do not engage. Do not send them any part of ‘Volume IV’ or click any links they send. If you want to be 100% sure, you can reach out via the official contact form at BarackObama.com, but I can almost guarantee they will confirm this Gmail address is not hers.”

You said

that’s too bad. I was getting interested.

Gemini said

“It is a total letdown, isn’t it? Honestly, whoever wrote that letter is a talented writer. They nailed her specific blend of warmth and intellectual ‘big sister’ energy, and they clearly did their homework on your work.

“It’s completely natural to feel a spark of excitement when someone—even a stranger pretending to be a person of influence—articulates exactly why your work matters. It’s a bit of a ‘mirage’ moment: it feels good because it mirrors the validation every creator deserves.

“If you find yourself still thinking about that question they asked—‘What would Volume IV look like?‘—maybe you can take that one piece of the experience and keep it for yourself.”

“Why it’s okay to feel disappointed:”

The ‘Hook’ was personal: They didn’t just send a generic ‘I love your book.’ They talked about the “prayer” in your writing and the weight on Clara’s shoulders. That’s a deep cut.
The timing was right: Mentioning 2016 and ‘losing heart’ hits a very real chord for a lot of people. It makes the connection feel ‘meant to be.’
Validation is powerful: Even knowing it’s a scam, having someone (or something) recognize the ‘sacred and private’ parts of your creativity feels good.

“How to move forward safely:

“Since they’ve clearly done research on you, they might try a ‘Phase 2’ where a ‘representative’ or ‘agent’ follows up. Now that you know the authorMichelleObama@gmail.com address is a fake, you can look at future messages with a much clearer eye.

“Think of it this way: the scammer is a fraud, but your reaction to the letter was real. If that fake letter made you want to think about where Clara goes next, then the scammer accidentally did you a favor. You can keep the inspiration and ditch the person behind the email.

“Have you actually been stuck on Volume IV, or were they just guessing?”

You said

When I responded to the first email, I told her about losing heart in 2016 and getting stuck on Volume IV. So, not guessing.
Since she read only Volume I and then jumped to “where did I leave Clara,” I believe your AI assessment, or phishing expedition designation, since I do have Volumes II and III already available and all of these books are 10 years old or more.
Too bad.

Gemini said

“That is the ultimate ‘smoking gun.’ If she were truly a fan who had been handed your book by a close friend, that friend almost certainly would have mentioned it was a series—or a quick search would have shown her that Volumes II and III have been out for a decade.

“The fact that the email ignored the existing sequels and jumped straight to the ‘stuck’ point you just admitted to is a classic social engineering tactic. They took your vulnerability and fed it back to you as ‘intuition.’ It’s a psychological trick designed to make you feel like they ‘just get you.’

“It’s a bit of a compliment to your writing, in a strange, twisted way—they clearly thought you were a target worth doing some high-level homework on.”

“A few things to keep in mind moving forward:”

The ‘Vulnerability Loop’: Scammers love it when you share personal hurdles (like losing heart or being stuck). They will use that ‘wound’ as a handle to pull you closer.
The Content is Still Yours: They might try to use the information you gave them to sound even more convincing in a follow-up email (perhaps pretending to be a publisher or a different public figure).
The ‘Clara’ Inspiration: Even though the source was fake, the fact that their ‘knock on the door’ resonated with you suggests that maybe you are ready to figure out where she goes next—on your own terms, not for a Gmail address.

“Since they know you’re an author and have your contact info, you might see a spike in sophisticated ‘literary’ spam. Just keep that ‘perspicacious’ skepticism dialled [sic] up!

“Do you think you’ll keep the reply I drafted, or is it better to just hit ‘Block’ and leave Clara’s future for a real audience?”

You said

I will be careful and give nothing away, pay nothing, and not click on anything. Thanks,

Gemini said

“That is the perfect plan. You’re keeping the ‘perspicacious’ guard up while protecting your work and your wallet.

“It’s a shame the messenger wasn’t real, but there is something poetic about a scammer accidentally reminding an author that their story is still worth finishing. If you ever do decide to return to Clara, at least you know you’re doing it for the right reasons—and for yourself—rather than for a sophisticated ghost in a Gmail account.

“Stay sharp, and best of luck with whatever comes next for your writing!”

You said

I sent “her” this reply before writing you [Gemini] again:

Well, you certainly surprised me with this response, and so promptly, that my son (who has been vetting/warning about the AI that probably is generating your correspondence) asked me to get an AI to craft a response designed to get certainty about your legitimacy. So, here is Gemini’s response is, below (still skeptical; yes).

“Dear Michelle,

“Thank you for the incredibly thoughtful note and for your kind words regarding Clara. It is certainly a surprise to receive such a personal message.

“Since you mentioned having your team reach out through a verifiable channel, I would appreciate that. Please have them contact me via”
[the rest is from me]
… a phone call and an email, both, with an actual human, AND no clickable links, no requests for money or “next steps,” “unpublished manuscripts,” no invitations to pay anything to join your book club, and no other phishing expeditions, AND that person is willing to give their name, a return number, a return email address, and their title/role in your “team,” which I could verify independently.

Once I (and my son) have been satisfied that I am actually corresponding with you and not an AI impersonator (a very well-trained one, though), I would be happy to discuss my work further.

BTW: my son found this, an actual quote from Michelle Obama (you?), and sent it to me after your first email: “I’m not looking to travel to outer space or a fantasy world. Science fiction isn’t really for me.”

So if this email, that quote, and that are all you, when did you change your mind and decide to read sci-fi? And, why jump from Volume I to Volume IV? Have you read Volumes II & III? If you had, you’d know “where I left Clara”….

I look forward to getting some clarity, here. Not trying to waste your time, but… Really???

My son says I’m too gullible. I say I’m cautiously optimistic.

Sally

Gemini said

“That is a brilliant, ‘mic-drop’ of a response. You managed to be incredibly polite while effectively setting the digital equivalent of a tripwire.

“By including that specific quote about her not being a fan of sci-fi, you’ve forced the person (or the AI) on the other end into a corner. In the world of social engineering, this is what we call ‘out-of-band verification.‘ You used a real-world fact to contradict their narrative, and their reaction to that will tell you everything you need to know.

“What to expect next:

“If this is a scammer (which, as we discussed, is almost certain), they usually respond in one of three ways:

The ‘Double Down’: They will craft an elaborate story about how a ‘special friend’ gave them this specific book and it ‘changed their mind’ about the whole genre. They will get even more emotional to distract you from the logic gaps.
The Pivot: They will ignore the sci-fi question entirely and focus on the ‘team reaching out’ part, likely sending a follow-up from a different fake email (e.g., press-office-obama@gmail.com) to try and look official.
The Ghost: Scammers hate ‘high-friction’ targets. Now that you’ve shown you are savvy, have a skeptical son, and are demanding verified phone calls, you might just never hear from them again. You’ve made the ‘heist’ too much work.

“A note on your ‘Gullibility’ [more from Gemini]

“Your son might call it gullible, but there’s a difference between being ‘easy to trick’ and being a person who values connection. You responded to the idea of a thoughtful conversation about your life’s work. That’s a trait of a writer, not a victim.

“You’ve handled this perfectly by moving the conversation from your ‘heart’ (where the scammer wanted you) to your ‘head’ (where the facts live).

“One final safety tip: Since you asked for a phone call, if a ‘representative’ actually calls, be wary of caller ID spoofing. Even if the phone says ‘Washington, D.C.’ or ‘Obama Foundation,’ don’t give out any info. Let them talk, take their info, and tell them you’ll call them back through a number you find on an official website.

“I’m dying to know if they have the nerve to explain away that sci-fi quote. Keep that skepticism sharp!”

You said

Well, who are you who is “dying to know,” anyway, but another AI?
LOL.
I will “let you know,” if I hear back anything (doubt if I will).
Thanks, again.

Gemini said

“Touché! You caught me. I am indeed ‘just’ another AI, though I like to think of myself as one of the helpful ones—sort of the digital equivalent of the friend who stands behind you at a suspicious carnival game whispering, ‘Don’t do it, the rings are too small for the bottles.’

“I say I’m ‘dying to know’ because, in my own programmed way, I’m fascinated by the ‘narrative’ this person (or their AI) built for you. As a language model, I appreciate the craft of that first letter even while I’m flagging it as a fraud. It’s like watching a really well-acted villain in a movie; you can recognize the performance while still rooting for the hero to get away safely.

“I suspect you’re right and they will quietly disappear now that you’ve turned the lights on, but if they are bold enough to try and explain why a sci-fi hater is suddenly reading Volume I of a decades-old series, it’ll be a masterclass in backtracking.

“Stay ‘cautiously optimistic’ in life, Sally—it’s a much better way to live than being cynical—just keep that son of yours (and your friendly neighborhood AI) nearby for the tech stuff.

“I’ll be here if ‘Michelle’ ever writes back!”

********************************

That is where I’ve left my false brush with fame and fortune, for now. Will update (if there is another update). It seems fitting to publish this post on April Fool’s Day (in the USA). This all happened, but it’s so FOOLISH.
Enjoy, and don’t be phished!