SEO
Is AI-written content bad for SEO?
Google’s position is that how content is produced matters less than whether it is useful. What is penalised is scaled content abuse — generating many pages primarily to manipulate rankings — and that applies to human-written filler exactly as much as machine-written filler.
What the 2024 policy change actually did
It replaced "automatically generated content" with "scaled content abuse", removing the argument that human review made mass production acceptable. The question is now the purpose and value of the pages, not the tool that produced them.
The test to apply to any page
- Does it say something specific that a reader could not have guessed?
- Does it demonstrate first-hand experience, or summarise what others wrote?
- Would someone finish it and feel they need to search again?
- Was it produced because a keyword tool suggested it?
The practical position
Using AI inside a process with real editorial judgement is not the problem. Publishing three hundred pages that each restate their own title is the problem, and it was a problem before AI made it faster.
The longer version
This answer is deliberately short. If you want the full treatment, The 35 types of SEO, explained without the padding covers it in about 6 minutes — free, ungated, written from client work.
Who answered this
Anas Bin Masud builds e-commerce sites and does technical SEO for businesses in the UK, Canada and Pakistan — fifteen live client sites, six of them stores taking real payments. These answers come from those projects rather than from a content brief. More about how I work, or ask me something directly.