Is it ok that I use AI for my content briefs?

[WebWizard]

I have been using AI for a while now for my content briefs I don't know its because google hasn't caught me or its ok to use?
Because if its not tell me please.
Thanks and have a great day to all!!

[NoDepositCasinos]

The problems you see with AI and Google are not about the tools but how you use them. Google is not trying to catch you or evaluate your content based on whether you used a specific tool but rather on how well it matches user intent.

So, use the tools you have, but don’t do it mindlessly. Double-check the content, give it a human touch, and make sure the quality is what you want for your site.

[vd752]

I have been using AI for a while now for my content briefs I don't know its because google hasn't caught me or its ok to use?
Because if its not tell me please.
Thanks and have a great day to all!!

Well, the cost of promoting a specific page is a way higher than the cost of writing it + most google penalties are for site content, not for links, so no reason to use AI unless you have no money for content

[fortuna]

It sounds like you're not even using AI to generate the actual content but just the briefs? I don't see how that would cause an issue. Even using AI to generate the actual content is not against Google's terms as long as done responsibly. I can't post links yet because of my low post-count. But do a Google search for "Google Search's guidance about AI-generated content" and you'll find a fairly detailed article of theirs on the issue.

[Strider1973]

If you want to write a summary it doesn't matter if it's written by yourself or by AI, as long as it's of similar quality, as it's not possible to tell if something has been written by a human or by AI...

[D-Bet]

It's no problem using AI for content, as long as it's still helpfull. Problem is, AI content often is too general, so you have to do alot of manual work still, how ever less with AI.

[VladS]

The problems you see with AI and Google are not about the tools but how you use them. Google is not trying to catch you or evaluate your content based on whether you used a specific tool but rather on how well it matches user intent.

So, use the tools you have, but don’t do it mindlessly. Double-check the content, give it a human touch, and make sure the quality is what you want for your site.

Totally agree with this opinion.
I use AI a lot for the content, but always carefully check it, redo and add some opinion or other "human touch".

Also, if you afraid of some penalties or something, you can try AI detectors and improve your content corresponding to the results.

[PaulEchere]

Answering the initial question - I see no issues with creating briefs using AI.

And now expanding on the topic a bit, I also see no issues with creating some content using AI as long as you give it enough relevant and valid input data.
For example, if you are writing a product review, which implies that it has been tested and the person writing it is a subject matter expert (in a way) - and you create it using AI, that is a problem. Because it wouldn't really be truthful as the words should originate from the actual person who has some authority in this topic.

If you are creating content that doesn't require any first-hand experience and is only based on facts - you might as well use AI.
For example, things like "10 highest paid Broadway actors" - all you need is the information, facts about how much those people make. As long as you get that input information about the people and related facts (with the necessary level of deatil) you can use AI to stitch that together into a post / article.
I have many pages like that created completely by AI and those pages rank well and get traffic - even if you would look at it and clearly see that it is AI, it still completely covers the "ask" of the person who is looking for it.

And obviously, don't half-ass it - you can use your own writing as well as other approaches to make sure your AI content sounds as much as possible like you.

[jiyahana]

It's okay to use AI for content briefs, and many people do it without problems from Google. Just make sure the content fits what your readers need. You can use AI checkers to improve it and avoid any issues. Adding your own style will make it even better.

[wonderpunter]

Why would you? after the last update it seems more and more ai is getting smashed, use AI for ideas but use a cretrive brain to make something thats not repeated a million times across the web., Stop thinking about the easy quick route ultimately it will go agaisnt you.

[jeanm]

AI should be used as a tool to help you but not to work for you. I use AI from time to time but more to give ideas and I never rely on it 100% to write my content. I always do extra research, double check, give some human touches, and make sure it gives values to audiences.

I don't believe in short win.

[NilsOlav]

Using AI for making content briefs can be a very good way to get a base. But, you always need to checked by human eyes and then tweaked. It can however get you started really quick.

[lapa221Q]

Yes, it's perfectly okay to use AI for creating content briefs! AI can help streamline the process by generating ideas, organizing information, and providing structure. However, it's important to ensure that the content reflects your voice and meets your specific needs.

[wonderpunter]

Yes, it's perfectly okay to use AI for creating content briefs! AI can help streamline the process by generating ideas, organizing information, and providing structure. However, it's important to ensure that the content reflects your voice and meets your specific needs.

sounds like you used ai to answer this question

[iso2009]

Dumb AI will not be penalized on a high authority site. So work on your branding and authority first.

A full AI article, fact checked by a human, which makes people stay, read, engage on your page will not be penalized by Google.

Google can detect AI content. We also can detect it to some degree just by reading a few lines. But Google looks deeper, into the user signals coming from your site. If the signals are good, the content is good, AI or no AI.

And to be honest, after trying gpt-o1-preview (which is probably the Gpt5 Orion preview), for mosts tasks (even complicated ones), AI is not as dumb as it used to be.

[NoDepositCasinos]

sounds like you used ai to answer this question

Good catch!

Dumb AI will not be penalized on a high authority site. So work on your branding and authority first.

A full AI article, fact checked by a human, which makes people stay, read, engage on your page will not be penalized by Google.

Google can detect AI content. We also can detect it to some degree just by reading a few lines. But Google looks deeper, into the user signals coming from your site. If the signals are good, the content is good, AI or no AI.

And to be honest, after trying gpt-o1-preview (which is probably the Gpt5 Orion preview), for mosts tasks (even complicated ones), AI is not as dumb as it used to be.

Good precision. Whether the content is AI-generated or not is just one of many factors Google evaluates, and by no means the most important one. If you don't mind, could you share the types of tasks for which the new model has been useful to you? I've tried it for translations and to explore ideas, but it seems to me that it's nowhere near as good as ChatGPT was at the beginning.

[iso2009]

If you don't mind, could you share the types of tasks for which the new model has been useful to you? I've tried it for translations and to explore ideas, but it seems to me that it's nowhere near as good as ChatGPT was at the beginning.

I find it much better at reasoning, which is exactly what OpenAI said it will improve (and it did). You can also follow its chain of thought to see if the logic is broken somewhere.

When I'm out of ideas, or too lazy, or I just need to get a different/second opinion on something, I use it for logic/best approach type of tasks (correlated to my task of programming). It's better and more comprehensive than GPT4o.

Secondary, I use it to get small pieces of code, it speeds up productivity a lot because it cuts off the time spent on checking endless documentation.

I still would not trust it to write a complex script, but it might be able to do it if you give it a really good prompt. But, I have no need to do that.

In the end, it really saves me a lot of time while debugging or trying to find a good approach to a problem. I thought about it and many times, I can do in 5 minutes something that would take me 2-3 hours of searching/reading/understanding.

Haven't tried it on text generation yet, or translations.

For me, it's quiet impressive.

[iso2009]

Not to miss the point of the thread, all my pieces of content on the websites are:

1. First generated by AI, curated by me.
2. Generated by scripts which put together these pieces of AI text, depending on many variables, directly on the front end.

So it's all programatic.

I also tried a year ago to generate articles based on the numbers only. With GPT 3.5 (cheaper) it was pretty problematic to make it understand all the number, so I had to generate first a long prompt (text and numbers), send it to their API and expected a very standardised output, so I can automatically use it. It went well for most prompts, I burned like $100 using their API (which is a lot of tokens).

The quality of GPT 3.5 articles was pretty much the same - not great, not terrible. But I would not use them on production. The quality of GPT 4 was a little bit better, but still I would not use them because they all sounded the same - and they were more expensive to create.

What I want to do is train a model (Llama, for example) to write in different ways, which means making a new model for each writer you want to use.

Sounds good, but there's a bottleneck here with training data. If you want a model to write in specific way, different from another model, or the standard model, you have to train it on human curated data.

Let's say I have the prompts, I have the data, I also need the output (the article itself, how it should look and sound). And you need at least 5000 to train a model. That's a problem.