AI-generated content and SEO - what actually happens to your rankings

← Back to Field Notes

The question is asked constantly: will using AI to write content hurt my Google rankings? The short answer is: it depends entirely on the quality of what you publish. Google has been explicit that its systems evaluate content quality regardless of how it was produced. AI-generated content that is thin, generic, or inaccurate is penalised for those qualities - not for being AI-generated. Well-researched, genuinely useful content that happens to have been drafted with AI assistance is not penalised for the production method.

What Google's spam systems actually target

Google's helpful content systems and spam policies target content that appears to have been created primarily to rank in search rather than to help users. The indicators they look for include: content that covers topics the site has no genuine expertise in, content that is vague and non-specific, content that could apply to any business or site without modification, and content that does not reflect actual experience or knowledge. These are characteristics of bad AI content. They are also characteristics of bad human-written content. The production method is incidental to the quality judgment.

Where AI content consistently underperforms

The categories where AI-generated content struggles to rank are precisely the categories where Google's quality signals are sharpest. YMYL topics - health, finance, legal, significant life decisions - require demonstrated expertise and authority that AI-generated content cannot fake. Queries where first-hand experience is implicit in what the searcher wants - "what is it actually like to use X product" - produce better results from content that reflects genuine experience. Opinion and analysis pieces that synthesise original thinking are difficult for AI to produce in ways that differentiate from the mass of similar content already indexed.

Where AI content can work

AI is most useful as a drafting and structural tool rather than a final output. Using AI to produce an outline, generate a first draft that you then rewrite substantially, research background information, or create supporting content for well-established topics you have genuine expertise in - all of these are productive uses. Publishing AI output without meaningful human review and enhancement is the approach that consistently underperforms.

The E-E-A-T lens

Run any content you are considering publishing through the E-E-A-T framework before it goes live. Does it reflect genuine experience? Does it demonstrate expertise? Is it the kind of content an authoritative source would produce? Is it trustworthy and accurate? These are the questions Google is effectively asking. AI content that passes this test is viable. AI content that does not pass it should not be published, regardless of how quickly it was produced.