AI Content Isn't the Enemy. Bad Content Is

Part 2 - AI Content Isn't the Enemy. Bad Content Is

"I’m sick of AI content." I see versions of this sentence on LinkedIn all the time. And I understand it. But pause for a moment, and let me explain. 

We’ve all read it. The perfectly polished LinkedIn post that somehow says absolutely nothing. The blog article filled with phrases like "in today's ever-evolving landscape". The endless bullet points. The suspiciously enthusiastic conclusion telling you that, ultimately, the possibilities are endless. That’s if you even get to the conclusion after losing faith in what you are starting to read. 

It sounds like AI. It feels like AI. And after a while, it becomes very easy to decide that AI-generated content is simply bad content. I want to clear things up

. 

Those who are very anti-AI-generated content might be missing something. No judgement here, just an observation.

The problem isn't AI.

The problem is what happens when we remove the human from the process.

The AI backlash is understandable

There is a particular type of AI content that makes me want to close the browser. It is generic. It is repetitive. It has no personality. It could have been written for one business, its competitor or a company on the other side of the world, and nobody would notice the difference. That's because it often has one purpose: produce something quickly.

And yes, if everyone is asking AI to write the same article, using the same prompts, answering the same questions and accepting the first draft, we're going to end up with a lot of very similar content.

That's not a great strategy.

Search engines don't need another version of something that already exists. And neither do your customers. It’s as simple as that. 

So why use AI at all?

Because AI is incredibly useful. It really is.

There. I've said it.

I am a copywriter. I've spent years researching subjects, interviewing people, finding the interesting angle and turning complicated information into something people actually want to read.

I haven't suddenly stopped believing in good writing because AI exists. I've simply found another tool.

AI can help me research a subject, identify questions people are asking, organise information, explore different angles and spot gaps in a piece of content.

It can give me the bones.

But bones aren't a person.

This is where the human comes back in

The real value comes from what happens next. I take that information and apply judgement.

I question it. I fact-check it, and I decide what is actually relevant to the reader. I bring in the client's experience, opinions, knowledge and personality. I change the language so it sounds like them, not a chatbot. I add the stories, observations, examples and little details that could never belong to every business in the same industry.

That's the difference between AI-generated content and AI-assisted content. One asks AI to do the job. The other asks AI to help you do the job better. Personally, I think it’s awesome.

And then there's SEO

This is where I think some of the AI backlash becomes particularly unhelpful. Good SEO content has never been about throwing a few keywords into an article and hoping Google notices. It's about understanding what people are searching for and creating something genuinely useful that answers their questions.

AI can be extremely helpful here.

It can help identify search intent. It can suggest related questions. It can help structure an article logically and make sure we're covering the subject properly. But if every business publishes the same AI-generated answer, where is the reason for Google, or the reader, to choose yours?

That's where the human element becomes important.

Google's own guidance is clear: AI-assisted content isn't automatically a problem. The focus is on whether the content is helpful, accurate, original and created for people rather than simply produced to manipulate search rankings.

In other words, AI isn't the shortcut to good SEO.

It is a tool that can help you produce better content.

There's a difference.

The sweet spot is somewhere in the middle

I don't believe businesses need to choose between traditional copywriting and AI.

Why would they? Use AI for the things it does brilliantly - research, structure, speed, exploration, data and ideas.

Then use a human for the things humans still do brilliantly - judgement, experience, personality, creativity, empathy and brand voice.

That's the combination I believe in. I really do. 

It's also why I offer both traditional and AI-enhanced content creation. Sometimes a piece of content needs to be researched and written from scratch traditionally.

Sometimes AI can make that process faster and more comprehensive. Sometimes the best approach is somewhere in the middle.

And actually, I think that's where we're heading.

Don't make your content sound less human to prove you're human

This might be the irony of the whole AI debate. We're so worried about AI making content sound robotic that some businesses are going back to writing perfectly human content. Beautifully written doesn't automatically mean discoverable. And optimised doesn't automatically mean soulless.

You can have both.

Your content can answer the questions people are asking and sound like your business. It can be structured for search engines and written for human beings. It can use AI without becoming generic. That's the bit I think we need to stop being afraid of.

AI isn't replacing good content; bad use of AI is replacing good thinking.

And that's a very different thing. The future of content isn't human versus AI.

It's human with AI.

And when you get that balance right, you don't have to choose between being found and being remembered.

You can do both.

I hope this has cleared things up for the doubters. It’s my opinion, and not everyone will have the same one - that's ok.

Read more of the series.