Do you trust AI Content Generator?

whois1games

whois1games

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
202
Reaction score
38
Basically, we see lots of AI content generators in the market like conversion .io, copy. io, etc.
Do you really trust these sites.
I have seen some of the threads here where it is working perfectly for them.
My Questions are
1. Will Google find whether it is AI-generated content or not in meantime or in the future?
2. What if lots of people try to generate the same time of content i.e. on similar topics?
3. If you are going to try this software, will you use in the existing site or test it by creating new site?
 
Advertise on BHW
whois1games said:
Basically, we see lots of AI content generators in the market like conversion .io, copy. io, etc.
Do you really trust these sites.
I have seen some of the threads here where it is working perfectly for them.
My Questions are
1. Will Google find whether it is AI-generated content or not in meantime or in the future?
2. What if lots of people try to generate the same time of content i.e. on similar topics?
3. If you are going to try this software, will you use in the existing site or test it by creating new site?
Click to expand...


1. Will Google find whether it is AI-generated content or not in meantime or in the future? Ask Google, only they can reveal this.

2. What if lots of people try to generate the same time of content i.e. on similar topics? Use a plagiarism checker if you're concerned, but it shouldn't happen

3. If you are going to try this software, will you use in the existing site or test it by creating new site?

I have 3 lots of different software and I test this on my test sites and web 2.0s. Provide you have an editor who can check facts, the qualiry is often better than cheap content services.
 
google can't tell a peach from a watermelon, so I doubt it will ever be able to know if it's machine, or human generated content. To "know" if the content is machine / human generated it relies on users feedback and actions, so if the software creates human readable content google will suck it... which they do anyway cause I've heard them say that they hate content generating software. Don't ask me for a source for this statement cause I don't have it. All I know is that I've read it somewhere (possibly on this forum since I spend most of my time on here) and that's that!

This being said, here are the answers to your questions (from MY point of view / experience, obviously, since I can't speak for everyone)....

1. no, google can't tell now or in the future if it's machine-generated content. Again, if the users reading this content behave the way the googlebot is programmed to interpret human behavior it will label the content as poor quality and "penalize" you with loss of traffic and/or rankings. But they (google) will never be able to understand if it's machine generated content, or written by yourself. And if the software you use creates excellent content that your site's visitors find useful then you churn content on autopilot and you will do just fine. And luckily, there are many content generation tools on the market today and they are getting better by the day, which I LOVE (I'm a passionate hater of google in particular, and of obscenely rich individuals and corporations in general)

2. lots of people DO generate the same type of content in the same niches, over and over again. And the content comes out as 100% unique all the time. So, no issue here

3. I do use content-generation software. I've been using Synthesis from prosperative.com (I don't think it's available anymore... not as standalone software anyway, it might be available with their monthly membership) for 2 autoblogs that I've set up last month and I'm letting the software autopost to those shitty autoblogs each day until they either get deindexed (they are indexed at the moment), or start ranking. I didn't do any on-page or off-page SEO for those websites, nor do they even look like websites, it's just a wall of text with my chosen keywords in the title and an affiliate banner at the top of the page. I'm sick and tired of playing google's retarded mind games, so I don't use image optimization plugins, I don't use use speed optimization plugins, I don't use CDN or SEO plugins, no legal pages for my website, no interlinking anywhere, no sub-headings and bullet points, not even a single image on the entire site. Just a 600-800 words article on each page and an affiliate banner. If this garbage content (most of the time it makes no sense, but I don't care) starts making me money (I've set my happy threshold at $200-300 per year in Clickbank commissions) behold 100 more autoblogs incoming next year. If it doesn't rank anywhere, at least I use up all of the credits that I have in my Synthesis software cause I tried using that content for money site but it's so bad that I literally have nothing to do with 5000 credits.

As filler content, this software-generated content is good. If you input broad keywords into the software... like "weight loss", or "dog training", or "virtual reality" or whatever you will get decent content that you can just slam on your money site as-is and without a problem. But when you try long tail keywords, or very specific keywords the software falls short.

Apart from Synthesis I am also testing Article Forge (which is 99% similar to Synthesis) but somehow, the quality of the content is better than Synthesis. And I also watched some Conversion.ai tutorials on youtube and the content is really impressive, but... it requires more manual interaction, but that's still good for most people, especially for those who hate writing or are not good at it, or don't have deep pockets to throw $2000 a month at academic writers to create pulitzer-winning content. My problem with Conversion.ai is that it's expensive as fuck ($109 per month is too much for a content-generating software, even if it's good)

So anyway, I don't use content generated by software on the sites that I care about, but I do use it on autoblogs and web 2.0s (for acquiring backlinks). And, like I said, if each autoblog makes me at least $200 per year with this type of content I will happily buy more credits and continue churning and burning until thing stops working. But for my money site I will not use software-generated content, not in the near future anyway because no software can yet compete with the human brain
 
tazarbm said:
My problem with Conversion.ai is that it's expensive as fuck ($109 per month is too much for a content-generating software, even if it's good)

So anyway, I don't use content generated by software on the sites that I care about, but I do use it on autoblogs and web 2.0s (for acquiring backlinks). And, like I said, if each autoblog makes me at least $200 per year with this type of content I will happily buy more credits and continue churning and burning until thing stops working. But for my money site I will not use software-generated content, not in the near future anyway because no software can yet compete with the human brain
Click to expand...
That allows 3 seats and as @luckyman posted the other day his writers are churning out hundreds of thousands of words per week, so there's a ton of new articles he has access to.
 
MisterF said:
That allows 3 seats and as @luckyman posted the other day his writers are churning out hundreds of thousands of words per week, so there's a ton of new articles he has access to.
Click to expand...

There used to be 3 seats, now they just offer one even with the highest plan but still fairly affordable considering the amount of content one can generate with it.
 
tazarbm said:
google can't tell a peach from a watermelon, so I doubt it will ever be able to know if it's machine, or human generated content. To "know" if the content is machine / human generated it relies on users feedback and actions, so if the software creates human readable content google will suck it... which they do anyway cause I've heard them say that they hate content generating software. Don't ask me for a source for this statement cause I don't have it. All I know is that I've read it somewhere (possibly on this forum since I spend most of my time on here) and that's that!

This being said, here are the answers to your questions (from MY point of view / experience, obviously, since I can't speak for everyone)....

1. no, google can't tell now or in the future if it's machine-generated content. Again, if the users reading this content behave the way the googlebot is programmed to interpret human behavior it will label the content as poor quality and "penalize" you with loss of traffic and/or rankings. But they (google) will never be able to understand if it's machine generated content, or written by yourself. And if the software you use creates excellent content that your site's visitors find useful then you churn content on autopilot and you will do just fine. And luckily, there are many content generation tools on the market today and they are getting better by the day, which I LOVE (I'm a passionate hater of google in particular, and of obscenely rich individuals and corporations in general)

2. lots of people DO generate the same type of content in the same niches, over and over again. And the content comes out as 100% unique all the time. So, no issue here

3. I do use content-generation software. I've been using Synthesis from prosperative.com (I don't think it's available anymore... not as standalone software anyway, it might be available with their monthly membership) for 2 autoblogs that I've set up last month and I'm letting the software autopost to those shitty autoblogs each day until they either get deindexed (they are indexed at the moment), or start ranking. I didn't do any on-page or off-page SEO for those websites, nor do they even look like websites, it's just a wall of text with my chosen keywords in the title and an affiliate banner at the top of the page. I'm sick and tired of playing google's retarded mind games, so I don't use image optimization plugins, I don't use use speed optimization plugins, I don't use CDN or SEO plugins, no legal pages for my website, no interlinking anywhere, no sub-headings and bullet points, not even a single image on the entire site. Just a 600-800 words article on each page and an affiliate banner. If this garbage content (most of the time it makes no sense, but I don't care) starts making me money (I've set my happy threshold at $200-300 per year in Clickbank commissions) behold 100 more autoblogs incoming next year. If it doesn't rank anywhere, at least I use up all of the credits that I have in my Synthesis software cause I tried using that content for money site but it's so bad that I literally have nothing to do with 5000 credits.

As filler content, this software-generated content is good. If you input broad keywords into the software... like "weight loss", or "dog training", or "virtual reality" or whatever you will get decent content that you can just slam on your money site as-is and without a problem. But when you try long tail keywords, or very specific keywords the software falls short.

Apart from Synthesis I am also testing Article Forge (which is 99% similar to Synthesis) but somehow, the quality of the content is better than Synthesis. And I also watched some Conversion.ai tutorials on youtube and the content is really impressive, but... it requires more manual interaction, but that's still good for most people, especially for those who hate writing or are not good at it, or don't have deep pockets to throw $2000 a month at academic writers to create pulitzer-winning content. My problem with Conversion.ai is that it's expensive as fuck ($109 per month is too much for a content-generating software, even if it's good)

So anyway, I don't use content generated by software on the sites that I care about, but I do use it on autoblogs and web 2.0s (for acquiring backlinks). And, like I said, if each autoblog makes me at least $200 per year with this type of content I will happily buy more credits and continue churning and burning until thing stops working. But for my money site I will not use software-generated content, not in the near future anyway because no software can yet compete with the human brain
Click to expand...
I believe the whole answer paragraph is AI-generated.
 
ANewBeginning said:
I first started writing articles with conversion.ai, which was trash content that got deindexed around June 9th or so.

In the image below you can see how the conversion.ai articles started getting traction, but around May they started getting deindexed which I'm sure is because of all of the duplicate content.

In June I decided to take all the conversion.ai articles down from the site and taken down from the google index and by June 9th, the articles were removed from the google index and from the site, so no more impressions coming from them.

In the pic below, signaled with a red arrow is when the conversion.ai articles were deleted from index + from the site and I started posting the articles from my writers!

nhVX3wj


As you can see, it seems that the new articles without dup content are gaining traction a lot faster than the conversion.ai articles previously published!
Click to expand...
 
I put that question into AI question template and ...

1. Answer:

In my opinion, it's important to have a healthy level of skepticism when it comes to AI content generator. This is because at this point in time the algorithms used by most services are flawed and filled with biases that will produce inaccurate predictions. It's not unheard of for artificial intelligence algorithms to make human mistakes, such as causing someone else physical harm. Despite these pitfalls-and there are many more we haven't discovered yet-artificial intelligence has demonstrated its use value in a number of ways; one small example being its ability if predicting movie box office revenues with 80% accuracy based on reviews from social media (source). It will be interesting to watch for how artificial intelligence evolves before we can decide if we should invest our trust in it

2. Answer: The content generator does not generate unique answers and thus should not be trusted.

I'm old enough to remember when the internet was still pre-web pages, so I've learned a thing or two about how technology evolves. One thing is that new technologies bring us more of what we already have - but in an easier way. So it's no surprise that we're likely to see these content generators proliferate ahead of anything else online because they're just following the path of least resistance.

3. Answer: Most people don't trust AI content generator when it's a machine. But what if it were an artificial intelligence?

This is a difficult question to answer because the definition of "trust" varies depending on who you ask and in what context. It's one thing for someone to know at an unchanging level that they can trust another person or group, but how do we know this about an A.I.? It may be impossible ever to quantify or predict something like this— there will always be possibilities for failure that are outside of the scope of our predictions.
The problem with trusting something so new and different is that people won't have any precedent upon which they can rely when evaluating their own assumptions and expectations about the future;
 
Samurai-champloo said:
I put that question into AI question template and ...

1. Answer:

In my opinion, it's important to have a healthy level of skepticism when it comes to AI content generator. This is because at this point in time the algorithms used by most services are flawed and filled with biases that will produce inaccurate predictions. It's not unheard of for artificial intelligence algorithms to make human mistakes, such as causing someone else physical harm. Despite these pitfalls-and there are many more we haven't discovered yet-artificial intelligence has demonstrated its use value in a number of ways; one small example being its ability if predicting movie box office revenues with 80% accuracy based on reviews from social media (source). It will be interesting to watch for how artificial intelligence evolves before we can decide if we should invest our trust in it

2. Answer: The content generator does not generate unique answers and thus should not be trusted.

I'm old enough to remember when the internet was still pre-web pages, so I've learned a thing or two about how technology evolves. One thing is that new technologies bring us more of what we already have - but in an easier way. So it's no surprise that we're likely to see these content generators proliferate ahead of anything else online because they're just following the path of least resistance.

3. Answer: Most people don't trust AI content generator when it's a machine. But what if it were an artificial intelligence?

This is a difficult question to answer because the definition of "trust" varies depending on who you ask and in what context. It's one thing for someone to know at an unchanging level that they can trust another person or group, but how do we know this about an A.I.? It may be impossible ever to quantify or predict something like this— there will always be possibilities for failure that are outside of the scope of our predictions.
The problem with trusting something so new and different is that people won't have any precedent upon which they can rely when evaluating their own assumptions and expectations about the future;
Click to expand...

I used another tool and this is the output

Not sure. I think it depends on who is using it.
We should not think of these AI writers as replacement for human copywriters. They just provide assistance to the content writers by getting rid of writer’s block and generating content ideas at scale. AI writing assistants are increasingly getting popular in the workplace. Some companies use them when they need to generate content for a specific topic or niche, while digital agencies use them to generate all kinds of content for their clients.
—
Admittedly, AI content generators create some really great content. But it also creates a lot of low-quality and spammy content, which is why many people are still hesitant to get the help of an AI content generator.
You cannot be sure that the AI generated content is going to be high quality and if you are not satisfied with the result, you won't have any other option but to start from scratch.
And statistically speaking, most people do not have a high level of technical knowledge. They're not able to tell whether or not they've been given low-quality work by an AI content generator or if they’ve been given a quality piece of writing that they can use for their project without editing it themselves.
The issue with trusting AI generated content is two
—
AI for content generation is a topic that's still up for debate. Some believe it can only be used as an assistant to human copywriters. Others think that it can make better content than humans because it can research and analyze data faster and in a more accurate way.
Even though the debate on AI's use for content generation is still up in the air, there are plenty of companies who are already using this technology. It has been proven to have significantly improved the production of copywriting, boosted writers' productivity, and created better quality content.
 
I'm currently playing with AI in text. I can say it has very good features when using deep learning and training machines with different authors.

I don't really think big G will be able to detect them.
 
Best way I could explain Google is kind of like the fat Dietitian who always tells you eat fruit and vegetables but the same guy always getting fast food in general can't tell to me if a software or a human-made article but they will shout loud "only unique content made by people can work " when in reality the internet is full of copied or spun content or ai made articles all over there search engine.
 
I don't trust A.I writing at all, there are too many variable.

I've tried once, using the word "Internal linking" and it went off to write about link building and wasted money.

Unless they perfect and narrow down the context better, it has a long way to go.
 
whois1games said:
Basically, we see lots of AI content generators in the market like conversion .io, copy. io, etc.
Do you really trust these sites.
I have seen some of the threads here where it is working perfectly for them.
My Questions are
1. Will Google find whether it is AI-generated content or not in meantime or in the future?
2. What if lots of people try to generate the same time of content i.e. on similar topics?
3. If you are going to try this software, will you use in the existing site or test it by creating new site?
Click to expand...

Content writers are already using this tools.
 
I won't suggest using it for your primary site. Go with it if for web 2.0 sites, check plagiarism and read it manually, do the necessary tweaks yourself.
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Networking Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting Hosting Images, Logos & Videos Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Misc

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping

BlackHatWorld

BHW Merch Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge Dispute Resolution

Other

Domain Name Forum IM Journeys Web Hosting Newsletter
Back
Top