Jan 26, 2026
Is AI-Generated Content Good for SEO? Balancing Automation with Search Best Practices
Zach Chmael
Head of Marketing
6 minutes
In This Article
AI-generated content isn't good or bad for SEO. Your process for creating AI-assisted content determines whether it helps or hurts your rankings. Build the right process, and AI becomes your competitive advantage. Skip it, and AI becomes your liability.
Updated
Jan 26, 2026
Don’t Feed the Algorithm
The algorithm never sleeps, but you don’t have to feed it — Join our weekly newsletter for real insights on AI, human creativity & marketing execution.
TL;DR
✅ Google doesn't penalize AI content—it penalizes low-quality content. Google's official guidance states that content will rank "regardless of whether it is AI-generated or not" if it's helpful, original, and people-first. The method of creation matters less than the value delivered.
📊 AI-assisted content now dominates search results. 86.5% of content in Google's top 20 results is at least partially AI-generated, and 91.4% of content cited in AI Overviews includes AI assistance. Human-only content is no longer a prerequisite for ranking.
⚠️ The March 2024 updates changed everything. Google's "scaled content abuse" crackdown reduced unhelpful content by 45% and deindexed sites relying on mass-produced, unedited AI content. Automation without curation is now a liability.
🎯 The winning formula is AI + human expertise. 67% of businesses report improved content quality when using AI, but only when combined with human oversight, original insights, and E-E-A-T signals that AI alone cannot provide.
🚀 The opportunity is in execution, not avoidance. Companies leveraging AI for SEO see 30% ranking improvements within 6 months and 3-15% revenue increases. The question isn't whether to use AI—it's how to use it well.
Zach Chmael
CMO, Averi
"We built Averi around the exact workflow we've used to scale our web traffic over 6000% in the last 6 months."
Your content should be working harder.
Averi's content engine builds Google entity authority, drives AI citations, and scales your visibility so you can get more customers.
Is AI-Generated Content Good for SEO? Balancing Automation with Search Best Practices
The Question Everyone's Asking Wrong
"Is AI-generated content good for SEO?"
It's the wrong question. Like asking "Is a hammer good for building?" The answer depends entirely on how you use it.
What startups should actually ask: "How do I use AI to create content that ranks, converts, and builds lasting authority—without triggering Google's quality filters or producing forgettable 'AI slop'?"
That's a much better question. And it has a much more useful answer.
What Google Actually Says About AI Content
Let's start with the official position, straight from Google:
"Automation has long been used to generate helpful content... Our focus on the quality of content, rather than how content is produced, is a useful guide that has helped us deliver reliable, high quality results to users for years." — Google Search Central, February 2023
Google's guidance is remarkably clear:
AI content is not automatically spam. Using AI to create helpful content is explicitly permitted.
Quality determines ranking. The method of production doesn't matter—the value delivered does.
Manipulation is the red line. Content created "with the primary purpose of manipulating ranking in search results" violates spam policies, regardless of whether it's human or AI-generated.
In the January 2025 Search Quality Rater Guidelines update, Google added explicit guidance on evaluating AI content:
"Generative AI can be a helpful tool for content creation, but like any tool, it can also be misused."
The guidelines now instruct quality raters to evaluate content using the "Who, How, and Why" framework, regardless of whether AI was involved in creation.
The bottom line: Google doesn't care if AI wrote your content. Google cares if your content is helpful, accurate, and serves users. These are different things that happen to overlap when AI is used well, and diverge dramatically when it's used poorly.
The Data: AI Content Performance in 2026
The research is now definitive enough to draw clear conclusions.
AI Content Is Everywhere—And Ranking
Metric | Finding | Source |
|---|---|---|
AI-assisted content in top 20 results | 86.5% | |
AI content in AI Overview citations | 91.4% | |
New web content with AI involvement | 74% | |
Human-only content in top positions | 13.5% | |
AI content in Google search results | 17.31% |
The data tells an unambiguous story: AI-assisted content now dominates search results. Purely human-written content is the exception, not the rule.
But Pure AI Content Struggles
Here's the critical nuance: purely AI-generated content rarely reaches position #1. The content that ranks best combines AI efficiency with human insight.
Human content was actually 4% less likely to be negatively impacted by Google updates than AI content, but the difference isn't in the tool, it's in the approach.
Low-effort AI content gets penalized. High-quality AI-assisted content thrives.
The March 2024 Watershed
Google's March 2024 core update fundamentally changed the AI content landscape:
45% reduction in unhelpful, low-quality content in search results
Mass deindexation of sites using "scaled content abuse"
Manual actions targeting spam-heavy sites relying on unedited AI output
Integration of Helpful Content signals into core ranking
The message was clear: Google can identify and penalize mass-produced, low-quality AI content. Sites that treated AI as a "content factory" saw their traffic decimated.
But sites using AI as a tool within a quality-focused process? They continued ranking, often better than before, as competition was cleared out.
Why Most AI Content Fails (And What to Do Instead)
Understanding why AI content fails reveals exactly how to make it succeed.
The "AI Slop" Problem
"AI slop" is content that's technically correct but completely forgettable, generic, surface-level text that could have been written about any company in any industry. It lacks:
Original insight – No perspective you couldn't get from any competitor
Specific examples – Generic statements without proof
First-hand experience – No evidence of actually using/doing/testing what's discussed
Brand voice – Interchangeable text that could appear on any website
Verifiable claims – Assertions without statistics or citations
AI slop happens when people use AI as a replacement for thinking rather than an enhancement to it.
What Google's E-E-A-T Framework Actually Requires
Google's E-E-A-T framework (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) reveals exactly what AI content typically lacks:
Experience: AI cannot test a product, visit a location, interview a customer, or implement a strategy. It can only synthesize what others have written about those experiences. Content without first-hand experience signals fails to meet this criterion.
Expertise: AI can summarize expert knowledge but cannot demonstrate expert judgment. It lacks the ability to say "In my experience with 50+ implementations, this approach works better because..." True expertise requires application, not just information.
Authoritativeness: Authority is earned through recognition, citations, and reputation. An AI-generated article has no author reputation, no track record, no credentials. Without clear author attribution linking to verifiable expertise, authority signals are missing.
Trustworthiness: Trust requires accuracy, transparency, and accountability. AI content without human review risks hallucinations, outdated information, and unverifiable claims.
The Pattern in Penalized Sites
Originality.AI analyzed 50 websites deindexed or penalized after recent Google updates. Every one showed high levels of automatically generated content with common characteristics:
No human editing or review
No original insights or examples
No author attribution
Thin content without depth
Repetitive patterns across multiple pages
Obvious lack of E-E-A-T signals
The pattern isn't "AI content gets penalized." It's "low-effort content gets penalized, and AI makes it easier to produce low-effort content at scale."
The AI Content Framework That Actually Works
The winning approach treats AI as a force multiplier for human expertise, not a replacement for it.
The Human + AI Collaboration Model
Phase | AI Role | Human Role |
|---|---|---|
Research | Gather sources, identify patterns, summarize background | Evaluate quality, identify gaps, add proprietary data |
Outline | Generate structure options, suggest sections | Select approach, add unique angles, define POV |
First Draft | Create initial content with proper formatting | Add experience, examples, original insights |
Optimization | Implement SEO structure, suggest improvements | Verify accuracy, refine voice, ensure E-E-A-T |
Quality Check | Grammar, consistency, formatting | Fact-check, add citations, final approval |
The key insight: AI handles the parts that don't require judgment or experience. Humans handle the parts that do.
What AI Does Well for SEO Content
Structure and formatting: AI excels at organizing content with proper headings, implementing FAQ sections, creating comparison tables, and maintaining consistent formatting—all signals that search engines favor.
Research synthesis: AI can rapidly compile information from multiple sources, identify common questions, and ensure comprehensive topic coverage.
Technical optimization: Implementing proper heading hierarchies, creating extractable answer blocks, and formatting for featured snippets.
Consistency at scale: Maintaining brand voice and formatting standards across large content libraries.
First draft velocity: Generating initial drafts that provide a foundation for human enhancement.
What Humans Must Add
First-hand experience: "When we implemented this for our client..." or "After testing 15 tools, we found..." This is what AI fundamentally cannot provide.
Original data and insights: Proprietary research, unique perspectives, contrarian viewpoints backed by evidence.
Expert judgment: Knowing which of multiple correct options is best for a specific situation.
Current context: AI training has cutoff dates. Humans provide real-time market awareness.
Brand voice and personality: The distinctive tone that makes content memorable rather than generic.
Verification and accuracy: Catching AI hallucinations, outdated information, and subtle errors.
Practical Implementation: The Content Quality Checklist
Before publishing any AI-assisted content, verify it passes these quality gates.
E-E-A-T Verification
[ ] Experience signal: Does this content include first-hand examples, case studies, or specific implementation details that demonstrate actual experience?
[ ] Expertise signal: Is the author credible in this topic? Is their expertise verifiable through their bio, credentials, or track record?
[ ] Authority signal: Are claims supported by citations? Does the piece reference authoritative sources?
[ ] Trust signal: Is the information accurate and current? Are "Last Updated" dates present?
Originality Check
[ ] Unique angle: Does this offer a perspective not available in competing content?
[ ] Original examples: Are specific examples included that aren't in the top-ranking content?
[ ] Proprietary data: Does this include statistics, research, or insights unique to your organization?
[ ] Distinctive voice: Would a reader recognize this as your brand without seeing the logo?
Technical SEO Alignment
[ ] Clear hierarchy: Proper H1-H3 structure with question-based headings where appropriate?
[ ] Answer blocks: 40-60 word direct answers after major section headings?
[ ] FAQ section: Implemented with proper FAQPage schema?
[ ] Statistics with attribution: Data points hyperlinked to sources?
[ ] Internal linking: 3-5 contextual links to related content?
Quality Threshold
[ ] Would you share this? Is this content genuinely useful enough that you'd share it with a colleague?
[ ] Does it beat existing content? Is this more helpful than what currently ranks for the target query?
[ ] Is it complete? Does it fully answer the user's question without requiring them to search elsewhere?
The "AI Slop" vs. "AI-Assisted Quality" Spectrum
Understanding where your content falls on this spectrum determines SEO outcomes.
Red Flags: AI Slop Indicators
Generic phrasing that could apply to any competitor:
"Our solution helps businesses streamline operations and improve efficiency through innovative technology."
No specific examples or proof:
"Many companies have seen success using this approach."
Obvious ChatGPT patterns:
"In today's fast-paced digital landscape..." or "When it comes to [topic], there are several important factors to consider..."
Surface-level coverage:
Covering the obvious points without depth, nuance, or expert insight.
No author attribution:
Content with no byline, or a byline linking to an empty author page.
Green Flags: Quality AI-Assisted Content
Specific, verifiable claims:
"After implementing this workflow across 23 client accounts, we saw an average 34% reduction in production time—with the biggest gains in long-form content creation."
First-hand experience markers:
"When we first tested this approach in Q3 2024, we made three mistakes that cost us two weeks of progress. Here's what we learned..."
Original data and insights:
Statistics from proprietary research, unique frameworks, or contrarian perspectives backed by evidence.
Distinctive voice:
A recognizable tone that reflects brand personality, not generic professional writing.
Clear expertise signals:
Author bios with verifiable credentials, links to other work, and a track record in the topic area.
The Scale Question: How Much AI Is Too Much?
One of the most common questions: "What percentage of my content can be AI-generated?"
The answer isn't a percentage, it's a quality threshold.
You could publish 100% AI-assisted content if every piece passed the quality gates above. Or you could publish 10% AI-assisted content and still fail if that content is low-quality.
The Right Mental Model
Think of AI involvement on a spectrum:
Level | Description | SEO Risk |
|---|---|---|
AI-generated, human-edited | AI creates first draft; human adds experience, examples, and voice | Low risk if done well |
AI-assisted, human-led | Human outlines and drafts key sections; AI helps with research, structure, expansion | Very low risk |
Human-created, AI-enhanced | Human writes; AI helps with optimization, formatting, grammar | Minimal risk |
AI-generated, unedited | Direct AI output with no human enhancement | High risk |
Scaled AI production | Mass AI content without quality control | Very high risk |
The March 2024 updates targeted the bottom two categories. The top three continue performing well.
Volume Considerations
Gartner predicts a 25% drop in traditional search traffic by 2026 due to AI chatbots and AI Overviews. This changes the calculus around content volume.
The old playbook—publish hundreds of thin articles to capture long-tail traffic—is increasingly obsolete. The new playbook emphasizes:
Fewer, better pieces that serve as authoritative resources
Content that gets cited by AI systems, not just ranked by Google
Depth over breadth in topic coverage
Quality over quantity in publication cadence
AI can help you produce more content—but "more" isn't the goal anymore. "Better" is.
AI Content and the New SEO Landscape
The rise of AI Overviews and ChatGPT Search changes what "good SEO content" means.
Traditional SEO vs. AI-Era SEO
Traditional SEO | AI-Era SEO |
|---|---|
Optimize for keywords | Optimize for intent and entities |
Target page 1 rankings | Target AI citations and featured snippets |
Drive clicks to your site | Become the source AI systems trust |
Publish volume for long-tail capture | Publish depth for authority building |
Compete for position | Compete for recommendation |
What AI Systems Cite
Research analyzing 680 million citations across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Gemini reveals what gets cited:
Content with clear hierarchical organization
Extractable answer blocks (40-60 words)
Statistics with clear attribution
Comprehensive topic coverage
E-E-A-T signals throughout
Fresh, updated information
Notably, 28% of ChatGPT's most-cited pages have zero organic visibility in Google search. AI systems are developing their own authority assessments independent of traditional rankings.
This means AI-assisted content that follows quality best practices isn't just acceptable, it's increasingly necessary to compete in the emerging search landscape.
How Averi's Content Engine Balances AI and Human Expertise
The challenge with AI content isn't knowing what to do, it's executing consistently at scale. That's precisely what Averi was built to solve.
The Problem with DIY AI Content
Most AI content fails not because of the AI, but because of the process:
No systematic quality control – Content goes from AI to published without proper gates
Missing E-E-A-T signals – No structure for adding experience, expertise, and authority
Inconsistent brand voice – Each piece sounds different because there's no voice documentation
No optimization workflow – Technical SEO requirements get skipped under time pressure
Scale without systems – Volume increases while quality decreases
How Averi's Workflow Ensures Quality
Averi's content engine builds the human + AI collaboration model directly into the workflow:
Brand Core Documentation: Before any content is created, Averi learns your brand voice, positioning, and expertise areas through website analysis. This ensures every piece maintains distinctive voice—not generic AI output.
Research-First Drafting: Content starts with AI-powered research that gathers statistics, identifies questions, and compiles sources. But the research is visible and editable—humans verify and enhance before drafting begins.
Structured Templates: Every content type follows SEO + GEO-optimized templates automatically—proper heading hierarchies, FAQ sections, extractable answer blocks, citation formatting. The technical requirements are built in, not bolted on.
Human-in-the-Loop Editing: AI generates structured drafts. Humans add experience, examples, and expertise through an editing interface that maintains the optimized structure while allowing full creative control.
Quality Gates Before Publishing: Content doesn't reach your CMS until it passes quality checks. Schema markup is applied automatically. Freshness signals are built in.
The Result: AI Efficiency + Human Quality
This isn't about choosing between AI and human content. It's about combining them systematically:
AI handles research, structure, formatting, and optimization
Humans handle experience, insight, voice, and verification
Systems ensure quality gates are never skipped
Scale doesn't compromise standards
The startups winning at content marketing in 2026 aren't the ones avoiding AI or blindly embracing it.
They're the ones who've built systematic processes that leverage AI's strengths while ensuring human elements that Google and users both require.
The Real Question Isn't "Should I Use AI?"
It's already answered. 86.5% of content ranking in Google's top 20 involves AI assistance. The question isn't whether to use AI, it's whether to use it well or poorly.
The startups succeeding with AI content in 2026 share common characteristics:
They treat AI as a tool, not a replacement for thinking
They have systematic processes that ensure quality at every stage
They add human experience, expertise, and voice that AI cannot provide
They focus on value delivered rather than volume produced
They build content that earns citations, not just rankings
The startups failing with AI content also share common characteristics:
They treat AI as a content factory
They skip quality gates under time pressure
They publish generic output without human enhancement
They prioritize volume over value
They build content that's technically correct but forgettable
The difference isn't the tool. It's the approach.
AI-generated content isn't good or bad for SEO. Your process for creating AI-assisted content determines whether it helps or hurts your rankings. Build the right process, and AI becomes your competitive advantage. Skip it, and AI becomes your liability.
The choice is yours.
Related Resources
Guides & How-Tos
How to Create Thought Leadership Content That Doesn't Sound AI-Generated
AI Content That Doesn't Sound Like AI: The Brand Voice System That Actually Works
E-E-A-T for Startups: How to Build Authority Signals When You're Unknown
How to Build an AI Content Engine That Grows Your Startup in 2026
Blog Posts
Everyone Became a Publisher. Almost No One Became Worth Reading.
SEO for Startups: How to Rank Higher Without a Big Budget in 2026
AI-Powered SEO for B2B SaaS: Getting to Page 1 Without an Agency
Google AI Overviews Optimization: How to Get Featured in 2026
The Future of B2B SaaS Marketing: GEO, AI Search, and LLM Optimization
Definitions
FAQs
Does Google penalize AI-generated content?
Google does not penalize content simply because AI was involved in its creation. Google penalizes low-quality content regardless of how it was produced. Google's official guidance explicitly states that "automation has long been used to generate helpful content" and that the focus is on quality, not production method. However, the March 2024 updates did target "scaled content abuse"—mass-produced AI content without quality controls—resulting in deindexation for many sites.
Can Google detect AI-generated content?
Google hasn't confirmed or denied detection capabilities directly. John Mueller stated that "if we see that something is automatically generated, then the webspam team can definitely take action." Practically speaking, Google likely can detect patterns common in low-quality AI content (repetitive phrasing, lack of E-E-A-T signals, thin coverage) even if it can't definitively identify AI authorship. The safer assumption is to focus on quality rather than hoping to avoid detection.
What percentage of content can be AI-generated?
There's no magic percentage. 86.5% of content in Google's top 20 results involves some AI assistance. The question isn't how much AI involvement is allowed—it's whether the final content is helpful, original, and demonstrates E-E-A-T. Content that passes quality thresholds can have significant AI involvement. Content that doesn't meet quality standards will struggle regardless of AI percentage.
Should I disclose AI involvement in my content?
Google's guidelines suggest adding "AI or automation disclosures when it would be reasonably expected." For most marketing content, disclosure isn't legally required, but transparency builds trust. The more important question: Is your content good enough that you'd be proud to acknowledge how it was made? If you're worried about disclosure, that's often a signal that quality improvements are needed.
How do I make AI content sound less like AI?
The real question is how to make AI content more valuable—voice improvement follows from value improvement. Start with specific, first-hand examples that AI couldn't have generated. Add proprietary data, unique perspectives, and expert judgment. Edit for your brand's distinctive voice rather than generic professional tone. The goal isn't to hide AI involvement but to add the human elements that make content genuinely useful.
Is human content better for SEO than AI content?
Not automatically. Human content was only 4% more likely to withstand Google updates than AI-assisted content—a negligible difference. What matters is quality, not authorship method. High-quality AI-assisted content outperforms low-quality human content. The best results come from combining AI efficiency with human expertise in a systematic process.
