Google Does Not Mind About Ai Content, Provided It Is Factual.

[MisterF]

"Google knows that the use of AI to generate content surfaced in search results is happening, and is fine with it, as long as the content produced by an AI is helpful to the humans who read it, says a company spokeswoman. Grammar checkers and smart suggestions—technologies Google itself offers in its tools—are of a piece with AI content generation, she adds.


“Our ranking team focuses on the usefulness of content, rather than how the content is produced,” says Danny Sullivan, public liaison for search at Google. “This allows us to create solutions that aim to reduce all types of unhelpful content in search, whether it’s produced by humans or through automated processes.”"

 

[LemonAcid]

There is no way to tell difference between good optimized AI content and Human content

 

[MisterF]

There is no way to tell difference between good optimized AI content and Human content

I did a quick test for a case study last week and got 5 different pieces of information about a product, 4 were factually incorrect and the manufacturers was the only one that was correct.
The 4 wrong pieces all gave different information too, so it was not them giving the same info.

This is where fact checking is going to eventually become more important, BUT at what point does Google develop the tools to be able to check facts.

 

[Ormosis]

I did a quick test for a case study last week and got 5 different pieces of information about a product, 4 were factually incorrect and the manufacturers was the only one that was correct.
The 4 wrong pieces all gave different information too, so it was not them giving the same info.

This is where fact checking is going to eventually become more important, BUT at what point does Google develop the tools to be able to check facts.

It would surprise me if Google did not have some sort of fact-checking technology already in place. On the other hand, there are also AI tools with in-built fact-checkers, such as LongShot.

 

[sandandkush]

Funny. AI-generated content has been around for a long time, not as recently as many people believe. Many news websites have been using AI content to produce articles that have ranked at the top of Google search results.

They are just stating the obvious. Might as well be quiet.

 

[MisterF]

Funny. AI-generated content has been around for a long time, not as recently as many people believe. Many news websites have been using AI content to produce articles that have ranked at the top of Google search results.

They are just stating the obvious. Might as well be quiet.

Waiting for John Mu to say Ai is not working and that way we know Google has zero idea.

 

[Chimmy1990]

If Google has something that can beat the AI, they're dieties. Officially.

 

[nostalgiaa]

In other words, we can't really differentiate human content from manually-checked AI content.

 

[spectrejoe]

Who would've guessed, it's not like me and a few others have been saying this for over a year

AI content doesn't matter, the quality does. If you produce trash content it doesn't matter if you manually wrote it or your AI did, it'll still be trash.

Believe it or not, some AI content is much better than your average native US writer. The only issue like you said is providing factually correct content.

 

[aurim]

Our ranking team focuses on the usefulness of content, rather than how the content is produced

On the appearance it's an OK statement, but you know how the best lies are made, with half-truth.
Quite a 180 degree change of tactics now, compared with the myriad of 'AI is spam' news the past months, they just need to win a bit of time, that's all.
And let people relax about it, so we stop working on what needs to be done to get AI content untraceable.

BUT at what point does Google develop the tools to be able to check facts.

That's a good question.

 

[INCC]

The problem is the duplicate text.

Any AI repeats itself so the same content gets absorbed by millions of pages sooner or later.

 

[spectrejoe]

The problem is the duplicate text.

Any AI repeats itself so the same content gets absorbed by millions of pages sooner or later.

there are way around that issue is that it also consumes more credits >.<

 

[aurim]

The problem is the duplicate text.

Any AI repeats itself so the same content gets absorbed by millions of pages sooner or later.

That's true.

there are way around that issue is that it also consumes more credits >.<

Not if you use a NLP module installed locally

 

[spectrejoe]

That's true.

Not if you use a NLP module installed locally

You mean for paraphrasing? It works but it's slow and most publically available paraphrases are kinda ass from my experience.

 

[aurim]

You mean for paraphrasing? It works but it's slow and most publically available paraphrases are kinda ass from my experience.

With few exceptions, anything that's public is subject to reverse-engineering and patching, especially if masses start to use that solution.
But in essence yes, it's about modifying text, not using an AI API and also preferably with a private, non-public solution.

 

[SeoBacklinkGenie]

There is no way to tell difference between good optimized AI content and Human content

I can spot chat gpt a mile away.

 

[Mountainsforever]

This is awesome news. Hope they keep it this way and my site starts picking up some traction

 

[MisterF]

I can spot chat gpt a mile away.

No. You can spot BADLY produced chat gpt a mile away, like most of us can.

 

[paisawaisa]

There is no way to tell difference between good optimized AI content and Human content

Doing this difference with a tool is hard. But manual review might catch it. And Google has the resources to hire people for this to check randomly.

 

[Black Belt Spodermen]

Google doesn't have even tools to know whether a particular content is useful or not. They don't even have parameters for checking the quality and that's why they are getting rid of criticisms by allowing AI content.