AI becomes the travel companion that talks people out of travelling

For decades, travel planning has followed a familiar pattern. A traveller browses guidebooks, scans review sites, checks social media recommendations and builds an itinerary around the locations that seem most popular. Increasingly, however, another voice is entering the conversation: artificial intelligence. New research from AI platform MyIQ suggests that travellers are not simply using AI to discover new destinations. Instead, many are asking a different question: What is not worth my time?

The findings point to an emerging shift in travel behaviour, where artificial intelligence is acting as a filter between online popularity and real-world value. Rather than encouraging people to visit more places, AI is increasingly being used to identify attractions, experiences and destinations that may not live up to their reputation.

When popularity becomes a problem

The challenge for modern travellers is not a lack of information. It is the opposite. Travel advice can now be found almost everywhere, from specialist websites and influencer accounts to short-form videos and online forums. While this abundance of information offers unprecedented access to recommendations, it also creates uncertainty. Every attraction appears to be a “must-see”, every restaurant claims to be a hidden gem, and every social media post portrays an unforgettable experience.

As a consequence, many travellers are questioning whether highly promoted destinations genuinely merit the time and expense involved. According to the MyIQ survey, which collected responses from 5,934 adults across Canada, the U.S., U.K., Australia, Latin America and the European Union, 68% of respondents use AI when planning travel specifically to avoid disappointing experiences.

The research also found that 61% of those polled have asked AI whether a destination or attraction was actually worth visiting and 54% have used AI to identify places or experiences they suspected were overrated.

AI as a digital sceptic

One reason AI is proving useful is that many travellers perceive it as being less emotionally invested than social media creators or commercial travel websites. Influencers often depend on engagement, sponsorships and visual appeal. Tourism organisations seek to promote destinations. Travel companies are ultimately trying to sell experiences. In contrast, travellers increasingly view AI as an analytical tool capable of examining large numbers of reviews, ratings and opinions simultaneously.

Rather than asking, “Where should I go?”, users are asking questions such as “Is this attraction worth a three-hour queue?” and “Is this destination better than alternative options nearby?”

Artificial intelligence can aggregate and summarise large volumes of feedback far more rapidly than a human researcher could manage. The result is that AI functions less like a travel agent and more like a sceptical travelling companion, challenging assumptions before decisions are made.

The economics of avoiding disappointment

International travel has become increasingly expensive for many households. Flights, accommodation, excursions and dining can quickly transform a holiday into a significant financial commitment. When travellers have limited budgets or restricted annual leave, making the wrong choice carries a higher opportunity cost. A disappointing attraction does not simply waste money; it consumes time that might otherwise have been spent on more rewarding experiences.

This may explain why many respondents appear more interested in identifying overrated destinations than uncovering hidden gems. From a behavioural perspective, people often feel the pain of a poor decision more strongly than the satisfaction of a successful one. Avoiding disappointment can therefore be more important than maximising enjoyment. Artificial intelligence appears to be filling this role by helping travellers reduce uncertainty before departure.

The findings may also signal a broader reassessment of social media’s role in tourism. Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube have become major influences on travel trends. Destinations can experience dramatic surges in visitor numbers after being featured by influential content creators. However, social media is optimised for visibility rather than accuracy. Photographs are carefully selected. Video clips are edited. Crowds, queues, poor weather and underwhelming realities are frequently absent from the final presentation.

Many experienced travellers have encountered attractions that appeared spectacular online but proved less impressive in person. By asking AI to evaluate social media recommendations, travellers are introducing a second layer of scrutiny into the decision-making process. In effect, AI is becoming a counterbalance to digital hype.

Another important aspect is personalisation. An attraction that one visitor considers overrated may be ideal for somebody else. AI systems increasingly allow travellers to specify their interests, budget constraints, mobility requirements and travel preferences. Personalised questioning can produce recommendations that are more relevant than broad online rankings. This represents a significant shift from one-size-fits-all tourism marketing towards individually tailored travel planning.

The survey findings also highlight a broader trend in consumer behaviour. Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used not merely to generate ideas but to evaluate them. Whether choosing a product, making a financial decision or planning a holiday, people are beginning to view AI as a decision-support tool rather than simply an information source. Travel provides a particularly interesting example because decisions involve both financial investment and emotional expectations. Travellers are not only asking where to go but whether a destination can realistically deliver the experience being promised. The success of AI in this role will ultimately depend on the quality and transparency of the information it analyses. AI systems are only as reliable as the data they receive. Poor review data, misinformation or biased sources can still produce misleading outcomes.