I’ve been wondering — has anyone else noticed that AI-generated content isn’t performing as well in Google search this year compared to 2023 or even 2024?
I run a couple of niche blogs (nothing fancy — tech tutorials, some health stuff, and a hobby site), and I’ve been using a mix of human-written + lightly edited AI content for a while now. It used to rank decently, especially if I optimized it properly and added some unique images and internal links. But recently, even solid posts that hit all the right keywords and search intent have dropped off the map.
A few things I’ve observed:
Pages that were ranking top 5 with AI content are now on page 2 or worse.
Human-written articles with a personal angle, anecdotes, or even just clunky storytelling are suddenly outranking the polished AI ones.
Sites where I spent time updating older AI posts with actual experiences or opinions seem to bounce back.
I’m guessing Google’s algorithm is picking up on “too generic” or “too clean” language and penalizing it? Or maybe user behavior (like bounce rate) is signaling something?
Anyway, I’m really curious if others are seeing the same trend. Has anyone tested AI content with and without heavy editing recently? What’s working for you in 2025?
Would love to hear your stories — especially if you’ve found a way to keep AI content ranking well without rewriting everything by hand
You hit a couple of words there that the OP didnt quite cover.
“human-reviewed” and “user intent” are not generally considered by the AI spamfests that are the general blog sphere. The vast majority will be unchecked prompt-spam. (And before the shouts of “no its not, my blog is great”, #1 noone cares. #2 i’ll show you a hundred posts on this forum all with the exact same formatting that add nothing to the conversation all by different users, and then you can try and tell me that it isnt the majority.)
Google already provides you an AI version of what it thinks should help you with whatever you search. So…
Do I believe Google would ‘hinder’ other sites’ AI generated content in favor of their own? Yes. It’s in their interests to do so because it makes their AI seem better.
Do I believe its better for my search results if they do? Yes. At the end of the day, if I want the AI result, i’ll read the search engine’s.
This is the common problem at every forum/discussion sites, but I would blame to the agency, they wanted to create much backlinks, before AI there are some limitation in SEO mainly in backlinks & content creation but now it’s flood.
As for Google favoring its own AI results, YES that’s a power play. But even so, people still want depth, personal experience, comparison, human takes. the stuff AI blurbs can not always deliver. So there is still plenty of room for creators who actually care about what they are publishing.
The key difference is not AI vs human, it’s effort vs Agency’s expectation (& laziness)
What we are seeing today is a flood of low-effort, unchecked AI content, which understandably turns people off. But that does not mean all AI-assisted content is inherently spammy or careless. The real problem is when it’s used without any thought, editing or domain knowledge & unfortunately, that happens a lot.
So, to your point No one wants to read garbage, whether it’s AI-generated or not. What deserves to rank are the pieces where creators regardless of tools actually care & I would argue that’s something Google is increasingly getting better at recognizing.
I don’t think AI content will automatically lose rankings in 2025 — but bad AI content definitely will.
Google’s stance has shifted over the past year. It’s no longer about who creates the content (human or AI), but whether that content is helpful, original, and reliable. So if you’re just generating low-effort content to stuff keywords or spin articles — yeah, it’s game over. But if you’re using AI as a smart assistant (for ideation, outlines, faster drafts) and you’re adding real value — expert insights, data, experience — you’re likely on the safe side.
In fact, some of the top-ranking sites today already use a hybrid content model: AI + human editing + topical authority.
The key? EEAT (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) still rules.
It’s all about value and user intent now. AI content works when you enrich it with your take or niche expertise—it stands out and keeps readers engaged longer.
I wanted to start a conversation that’s been on my mind as both an SEO consultant and web developer:
Has AI content helped or hurt your SEO in 2025?
Tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini have made content production faster — but I’m seeing mixed results when it comes to actual search engine rankings.
From my experience:
Lightly edited AI content tends to index but not rank well
Human-optimized AI content + proper structure still performs decently
I’ve started focusing more on:
Combining AI drafts with original insights
Adding value with custom code snippets, real screenshots, or case studies
Updating existing blog posts manually instead of mass-publishing new ones
What’s everyone else seeing?
Have AI-written pages helped or hurt your organic traffic?
Are you using AI for meta tags, outlines, or even code generation?
Any success stories (or horror stories) from the last Google core update?
Would love to hear your thoughts — especially if you’ve tested different publishing strategies or seen unexpected results.
I have seen success by treating AI like a junior assistant. you can use it to scale ideation & structure, but always add original value, real-world proof & your brand voice to survive in today’s SEO landscape.
As is to be expected from any new tech that helps people, people’s immediate reaction is “good, do my work for me”… which isnt what AI does. It’s not an assembly line robot, you cant stick your feet up on the desk and let it churn out infinite content and make billions of e-bucks.
Who got “ranked” (no such thing in Google) well before AI? The people who put the effort in.
Who gets “ranked” (still no such thing) well since AI? The same people.
Agree, AI did not rewrite the rules of SEO, just made the cracks in strategy more visible. The people who were go easy on before are now doing it faster with AI and seeing the same (or worse) results. AI doesn’t do the work.
I have seen AI-powered content flop hard when it’s used in isolation but rank consistently when paired with first-party data, case studies, custom visuals & manual optimization.
AI content is not likely to lose rankings in 2025 just because it’s AI-generated. Google ranks content based on quality, relevance, and user value. If your AI content is helpful and meets EEAT guidelines, it can still perform well.
