AI content

[Jalleje]

Curious to hear what people think about AI content these days. Do you still see it as an SEO killer, or has Google relaxed a bit lately? Seems like more sites are getting away with it, interested to hear your experience.

[PaulEchere]

Hey,

AI-generated content neither an SEO killer nor it is a solution to every problem.
I'd recommend looking at it from a common sense perspective, and you don't necessarily even need to look up any of G's explicit statemrtns on AI content.

All of this mostly goes down to how you are using it and what content exactly is AI generated. Some content you (may need to) create - is content that requires expertise, experience and some level of authority on a given topic.

In this case you want to give as much proof as possible to show that:

1. The person (in this case person) that wrote this actually exists.
2. The person who wrote this has first-hand experience in this specific issue / topic.
3. That the person who wrote this has wider domain-specific experience.

This may apply to topics like, idk, "anti-acne skin care routines for people over 50" - you may use AI to look up information, you may use AI to consolidate information and there is no harm in explicitly stating that you did (there may be benefits to doing that). But you absolutely want to show first-hand experience and expertise in the topic you are covering - in other words you want to show that the person writing this is a professional in the field.

I'd say this applies to trivial igaming stuff like umm, a casino review, which should, in theory be written by someone who actually tried out the product and is sharing his / her opinion - which is not something that an AI agent can practically do like a human would.

On the other hand - there are topics where most of the above doesn't matter at all, and all that matters are accurate sources of information and facts.
Something like "Highest paid tennis players of 2025" - this can be purely AI generated content as long as you are good with the way it works and make sure it uses good sources. Many such articles for me are performing extremely well despite being 100% AI-generated (some of them I didn't even bother to proof-read). Players salaries are just a matter of fact which doesn't change based on your personal experience and / or expertise.

[casinobonusguy]

I am using AI to assist me with some coding and content , they are mainly game review pages right now . I am also using AI to rewrite some content that I wrong 15 years ago on some sites .The pages are indexed but IMO had poor onsite Seo and outdated facts (some payment options no longer exist etc) .I cannot see myself making a site from scratch from AI or use it on current high ranking pages.

[wonderpunter]

AI can be good as long as it's not slop whioch is what 99% of peopel are using it for and very succesfully. I think soon though it will come to an end as the algorihim can already understadn slot they just need to do soemthign about it.

[fonzi1022]

Ai is a great tool to use for gathering up to date information but I wouldn't use it to write my content.

Ai + human works well.

We're already seeing a lot of changes from google in regards to how they treat Ai content.

[Jalleje]

Interesting take, thanks for sharing!

[NoDepositCasinos]

Curious to hear what people think about AI content these days. Do you still see it as an SEO killer, or has Google relaxed a bit lately? Seems like more sites are getting away with it, interested to hear your experience.

I don’t see it as sites “getting away with it.” I see it more as the tools getting better, the outputs becoming more refined, and users understanding that it’s not about writing a prompt, copying the answer, and publishing it as-is.

In that sense, I’d say it’s being used more effectively now. At the end of the day, whether something is fully or partially created by AI matters less than whether the content is useful, accurate, and sounds genuine (even if it is not).

[Pokie Inc]

I think AI content isn’t inherently an SEO killer, but it’s not a magic solution either. From what I’ve seen, it can work well when it’s used thoughtfully and combined with real expertise, editing, and unique insights. On the other hand, mass-produced, low-value AI content still tends to struggle. It really depends on quality, intent, and how much effort goes into making it genuinely useful for users.

[Karri]

I've heard it works pretty well in link farms and other similar projects, though that might also be because Google has seemingly abandoned all effort in this area. It's a helpful tool in localisation/translation when you need to spin ideas, but does a horrible job on its own. Sliding scale depending on how important the content is, or how much it needs to stand out.

One of the issues is that rather than saving money/time overall, you save money/time with writing content and spend it fixing/prompting/engineering AI content.

[Pokie Inc]

I've heard it works pretty well in link farms and other similar projects, though that might also be because Google has seemingly abandoned all effort in this area. It's a helpful tool in localisation/translation when you need to spin ideas, but does a horrible job on its own. Sliding scale depending on how important the content is, or how much it needs to stand out.

One of the issues is that rather than saving money/time overall, you save money/time with writing content and spend it fixing/prompting/engineering AI content.

We mostly use AI to generate content for lower-cost outreach and crowd links, where speed and scale matter more than uniqueness. For higher-impact projects, though, we still rely on manual work and deeper editing to make sure the content actually stands out.

[SweetJackpots]

I’ve tested fully AI-generated pages vs. AI-assisted but heavily edited content. The difference in indexing stability and ranking longevity is noticeable. Pure AI content often ranks fast, then disappears just as fast. Hybrid content (AI + human editing + original data/opinion) sticks much better.

[Nextwin]

Running affiliate sites and AI content has been part of our workflow for a while now. Honestly the bigger ranking factor is E-E-A-T signals and backlinks, not whether a human or AI wrote the copy. Of course u need to check it and read it by yourself before u publish it.

[mrksgrnt]

AI is just a tool - it's all about how you use it. One-prompt articles are an instant giveaway. What actually works: detailed prompts with clear instructions, verified facts fed into the prompt, proper structure defined upfront. Put in the work on the prompt side and the output is solid.

[Slot777]

I agree with this. In the end, Google is not against the use of AI as long as the content is reliable and kind of unique. Citing other articles should give extra credibility.

[QuantumNomad]

Curious to hear what people think about AI content these days. Do you still see it as an SEO killer, or has Google relaxed a bit lately? Seems like more sites are getting away with it, interested to hear your experience.

I treat AI-generated content pretty much the same way I treat auto-generated backlinks, like GSA SER. You might get a short-term boost, but long-term it usually doesn’t hold up.

If an article is properly edited, improved, and made genuinely useful for the reader, then it stops being “AI content” for me and becomes author-driven content. Those are the pieces that actually perform for me - they get picked up in Google’s AI results, show up in ChatGPT/Perplexity citations, or at least drive traffic. Pure AI articles (even when I try to craft solid prompts so they’re well-structured and comprehensive) tend to drop out of the google index over time. And even if they stay indexed, Google often just doesn’t surface them in search results - so I don’t see much real value there.
So my view hasn’t really changed now - if you want to build a high-quality project, you still can’t avoid manual work.

[wonderpunter]

But when you look at the top 20 results for the most comeptitve keywords the majority is not only AI, but one click slop. it's never been easier to push out low value garbage and rank top.

[Emiliana Rostowicz]

Google has made it pretty clear that they care more about the value of the content than how it was made. In my experience, if the AI text is actually helpful and fact-checked, it ranks okay. But if you just dump raw AI spam on a site, you're asking for trouble during the next big core update ��

[idanbraun]

Over-reliance on AI is a mistake. I mean when it comes to creating a lot of content using AI.

What works for me is the help I can get from AI in writing content. After AI produces the requested content, I always go through it and make adjustments, especially if it made a mistake.

Of course, I also write a lot of content myself, based on knowledge, experience and research.

[alperseo]

Watched AI content behave the same way across a few TR-market properties I look at:

First 30-60 days, indistinguishable from human-written work in SERP performance. Sometimes ranks slightly higher because pure volume is higher.

After that, slow drift down or flat plateau. Recovery happens but it's rare without a content rewrite.

The reflexive fix ("humanize the output, run it through a detector") misses what's actually happening. Detection is solvable — almost any humanization tool passes. What isn't solvable that way is information gain. If 50 sites in a niche all paraphrase the same source material, AI content just produces the 51st version of it. Google increasingly treats that as zero-value regardless of who or what wrote it.

The real fix is research, not rewriting. New data, first-hand testing, niche-specific examples — that's what survives.

[GratisTragamonedas]

I use AI as a writing assistant, not a content generator — structure and expertise come from my own experience, AI just helps with efficiency. In my experience, what Google actually cares about is whether there's a real person with real credentials behind the content. Adding a named author with a photo and verifiable background has moved the needle more than anything else this year.