✔️ Google: Machine Or AI Generated Content Still Not High Quality

[RealDaddy]

Credit - Search Engine Roundtable

In the past few days, Google's John Mueller made some comments on the machine or AI-generated content basically knocking on the quality level of such content.

On Reddit, he said "nope" when asked, "Are AI content writers good for creating blog posts or product review posts?" And on https://twitter.com/JohnMu/status/1505643631775989761 yesterday he said, "as far as I can tell, most sites have trouble creating higher-quality content, they don't need help creating low-quality content" when asked about using AI-based content creation tools to generate content. Here is that tweet:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1505643631775989761

What do you think? Is he again trying to sabotage something that works?

 

[TheMarquis]

So, based on what JM really said, AI content writers are good, and you can rank your site with this type of content.

 

[Topiano]

So, based on what JM really said, AI content writers are good, and you can rank your site with this type of content.

Seconded.
Reminds of BHW slang; Always do John's opposite.

 

[praetserge]

"What do you think? Is he again trying to sabotage something that works?"
He's somewhat right:
"As far as I can tell, most sites have trouble creating higher-quality content" - true
"they don't need help creating low-quality content" - false
Basically, google can't distinguish between good and bad content.

 

[TheMarquis]

Seconded.
Reminds of BHW slang; Always do John's opposite.

On a serious note, yes, the content (AI generated or not), created without any logic, will not have any value. But if the AI content is good enough (with minor tweaks, there and there), I don't see any reasons why it shouldn't rank.

 

[Topiano]

On a serious note, yes, the content (AI generated or not), created without any logic, will not have any value. But if the AI content is good enough (with minor tweaks, there and there), I don't see any reasons why it shouldn't rank.

I don't make a good content writer but have seen AI generated long form ones that reads good. I see no reason why they shouldn't rank well on Google if they pass plagiarism and other basic content optimization checks.

 

[spectrejoe]

Why would someone working at Google openly say anything positive about it? Never listen to someone when they have a lot to lose by talking the truth and only things to gain by lying

 

[polygraph]

I used to work at an AI company, and AI is nowhere near as good as the media want you to believe.

We are a very long way away from AI being able to replace competent writers.

 

[praetserge]

On a serious note, yes, the content (AI generated or not), created without any logic, will not have any value. But if the AI content is good enough (with minor tweaks, there and there), I don't see any reasons why it shouldn't rank.

I used to work at an AI company, and AI is nowhere near as good as the media want you to believe.

We are a very long way away from AI being able to replace competent writers.

It is possible to use AI content for something basic and it will probably be better than most of the $2/article hand written content. So it can rank.

As for anything a bit more complicated... it's rubbish.
Remember, AI can't analyse... it can't tell you if apples are better than oranges as it has no thinking, no feelings, not tastes, etc.

 

[BHSEONewb]

Basically, google can't distinguish between good and bad content.

The easiest way to make up for the short comings in Google's abilities is to go on a PR campaign telling people that AI content is bad and low quality. Basic propaganda 101 that we've never, ever, ever seen software companies do before. </sarcasm>

I've played with AI content over the last couple of years and it's passable for a machine. A human reader will know it's either AI generated or think it's written by someone with a poor understanding of the english language. I've used it a few times to give me the bones of an article and then I go in and fix the order and the grammar. It comes out as good content, not the voice my site has from content I've written from scratch, but it's good content that won't have a visitor wondering if a native speaker wrote it. Still takes time though and in my experience, not THAT much less time than researching and writing the topic myself.

 

[MKSKS]

Shit and crap content ranks well so why won't AI content rank.

 

[Starblazer]

So, he agreed that low-quality content ranks better

 

[absolvo]

Credit - Search Engine Roundtable

In the past few days, Google's John Mueller made some comments on the machine or AI-generated content basically knocking on the quality level of such content.

On Reddit, he said "nope" when asked, "Are AI content writers good for creating blog posts or product review posts?" And on https://twitter.com/JohnMu/status/1505643631775989761 yesterday he said, "as far as I can tell, most sites have trouble creating higher-quality content, they don't need help creating low-quality content" when asked about using AI-based content creation tools to generate content. Here is that tweet:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1505643631775989761

What do you think? Is he again trying to sabotage something that works?

AI content is not good enough for Google,, but spun-trash-markoved content works wonders!

 

[Big Danny]

It is possible to use AI content for something basic and it will probably be better than most of the $2/article hand written content. So it can rank.

As for anything a bit more complicated... it's rubbish.
Remember, AI can't analyse... it can't tell you if apples are better than oranges as it has no thinking, no feelings, not tastes, etc.

I agree with this. I've spent many hours working with tools like Jasper (formally Jarvis) and would never publish that type of content on my authority site without major revisions first. I tried to make it work, but in the end, at least for me, I spent about as much time editing the AI content to get the quality where it needed to be compared to if I just wrote the article from scratch myself.

With that said, AI content has its place and it can certainly rank in Google. There are so many different ways to use it!

 

[networkcat]

After reading this thread, my dreams of easy money are over.

 

[Cognitive]

Also, John Mueller a few months ago:

"in the end if it's low quality content it doesn't matter if it was written by a person or by a machine, it's like it's not that useful for people."

 

[leechesBleechin]

I use jasper as a writing assistant to fill in gaps, thicken out content, write headers (sometimes), and kill writer's block. I would never let it just run amok and write its own full-length article for my money sites. Using it as an assistant and thought completer cuts my writing time down by like 90% while still maintaining a high-quality article.

That's not to say you can't rank with compose button spam, we've all seen it work, but to any human reader, it's terrible stuff. Either way, John's full of shit as usual.

(And btw, if you do want to do compose button spam with these, utilize recipes!, 100x better than just letting AI freestyle it.)

 

[Stitches and Burns]

I used to work at an AI company, and AI is nowhere near as good as the media want you to believe.

We are a very long way away from AI being able to replace competent writers.

When AI replaces competent writers, we would have self-aware robot servants in our households and fully self-driving, even flying, cars.

People don't realize that the human brain is the most powerful machine ever and we're only using 10% of its capability. If AI becomes better at writing than a human who has spent years mastering English and its nuances, then robots would have taken over the world.

 

[WIZDAHL]

10% of its capability

That's a myth. Someone who's using 10% of the brain's capability is probably asleep.

 

[RealDaddy]

but to any human reader, it's terrible stuff.

Many new tools prove this wrong.