Blog article for the series Beyond the Content
The problem isn't AI. It's what happens when we remove the human from the process. Generic, repetitive AI content with zero personality makes me want to close the browser. But AI helps research, spot gaps, and structure ideas. It gives me the bones. But bones aren't a person. I take that information and apply judgment. I fact-check it. I bring in the client's experience, opinions, and voice. That’s the difference between AI-generated and AI-assisted content. One replaces the human; the other helps you do the job better. The sweet spot is in the middle. Use AI for research, structure, and speed. Use humans for judgment, empathy, creativity, and brand voice.
About the project
AI Content Isn’t the Enemy — Bad Content Is
"I’m sick of AI content." I see versions of this on LinkedIn all the time. I understand it. But pause for a moment, and let me explain.
We’ve all read it: the perfectly polished post saying absolutely nothing, filled with phrases like "in today's ever-evolving landscape," endless bullet points, and a suspiciously enthusiastic conclusion telling you the possibilities are endless. That’s if you even get to the conclusion before giving up. It sounds like AI. It feels like AI. It’s easy to decide AI content is simply bad content. But those who are anti-AI might be missing something. No judgment, just an observation.
The backlash is understandable. Generic, repetitive AI content with zero personality makes me want to close the browser. If everyone asks AI to write the same article, using the same prompts, and accepting the first draft, we end up with identical content. Search engines don't need another carbon copy. Neither do your customers. It’s as simple as that.
So why use AI at all? Because it is incredibly useful. It really is. There. I've said it.
I'm a copywriter. I've spent years researching subjects, interviewing people, finding interesting angles, and making complex ideas readable. I haven't stopped believing in good writing; I've simply found another tool.
AI helps me research, spot gaps, and structure ideas. It gives me the bones. But bones aren't a person.
This is where the human comes back in.
I take that information and apply judgment. I fact-check it. I bring in the client's experience, opinions, and voice. I add stories, examples, and details no chatbot could invent. That’s the difference between AI-generated and AI-assisted content. One replaces the human; the other helps you do the job better. Personally, I think it’s awesome.
SEO is where the backlash gets unhelpful. Good SEO is about creating genuinely helpful content. AI helps identify search intent and structure logically. But Google’s guidance is clear: AI content isn't automatically bad—it must be accurate, original, and created for people, not search bots.
The sweet spot is in the middle. Use AI for research, structure, and speed. Use humans for judgment, empathy, creativity, and brand voice. I offer both traditional and AI-enhanced creation because the future isn't human versus AI—it's human with AI.
AI isn't replacing good content; bad use of AI is replacing good thinking. When you get the balance right, you don't have to choose between being found and being remembered. You can do both.
I hope this clears things up for the doubters. It’s my opinion, and not everyone will agree; that's ok.
