Pure AI Content vs. Human-Edited: Which is actually ranking longer?

We all know AI can rank fast, but I'm seeing a lot of 'burn and churn' lately. Is anyone actually seeing long-term stability (6+ months) with 100% AI content, or is the 'Human-in-the-loop' model the only way to survive the next core update? I'd love to hear from people running sites with 500+ pages."

In the battle between AI and human content, the short answer is: Google doesn't care who writes it, as long as the content is useful to users.

IGoogle's primary focus is on the usefulness of the content to users, regardless of who writes it. However, I'm curious to know if anyone has noticed a difference in user engagement metrics, such as bounce rate and time on site, between AI-generated and human-written content. I've seen some sites with 100% AI content ranking well initially, but struggling to maintain stability in the long term, while others with a human-in-the-loop approach seem to be performing more consistently.

AI or human it doesn’t matter. If the content helps users, Google rewards it.

Many people usually think that long-term stability depends on how the information is managed, not only whether it was written by AI or a person. If you have more than 500 pages, it can be better to focus on consistency, topical authority, and continuing optimization instead of just automation. Testing different content workflows on smaller groups first might also help you get better data before you go bigger.