AI content, generated with artificial intelligence, is rapidly invading the web. On blogs and social networks, ChatGPT’s typical phrases and emojis are multiplying, now also adopted by those who, until recently, hated them. Among SEO communities, the question has become a mantra: Does Google reward or penalize AI-generated content?
In a world full of conjecture, it is an official Google document that offers a concrete answer: the Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines, updated in January 2025. This text guides thousands of quality raters in evaluating the content that appears in search results. And it’s also our best starting point for understanding what Google rewards and what it penalizes.
After a careful analysis of the document (over 170 pages), I identified the 10 fundamental factors that explain when AI can be rewarded and when it can become the worst SEO enemy.
Google rewards original, curated, and verified content
One of the cornerstones of the guidelines (p. 21) is that the content must be the result of real human effort, originality and accuracy of the data, apparently a strong stance against AI.
Indeed, AI content risks being perceived as “low effort” if not supervised. AI reformulates information it finds online, often does not add interpretative or critical value, and the absence of originality leads to the risk of duplicate content. This could be a problem because Google penalizes texts that seem to be automatically generated and have no added value. If the content is perceived as unoriginal or mass-produced, it is classified as “Lowest Quality MC”.
On the contrary, if AI is used to build unique, well-curated and verified content, the judgment can be very positive. AI can guarantee stylistic uniformity, facilitating the use of content, and can help to deal with a topic in an exhaustive way, respecting the criteria of completeness of information and providing new ideas to be explored.
It takes human experience to comply with E-E-A-T
Google doesn’t just look at the text, but also at the person who writes it. The guidelines (p. 78) introduce Experience as a new pillar of E-E-A-T.
AI content, no matter how well written, cannot replace the direct experience of the human author, especially on sensitive issues such as health, finance, education, areas in which the E-E-A-T paradigm is fundamental and in which errors or inaccuracies can lead to severe penalties.
We therefore need a recognizable authorship, perhaps enriched with contributions or supervision by experts in the field.
Google values content with a clear purpose and good structure
The document is crystal clear (p. 10): Google assesses how clear the purpose of a page is and how well it is achieved.
Generic or cluttered AI content risks not communicating purpose. Worse, if the content tries to trick the user with clickbait headlines or vague information. In this case, it is labeled as “Lowest Quality”.
Instead, pages should have an obvious useful goal, a logical and easily usable structure, without tricks or misleading layouts. When used well, AI can help structure content clearly and precisely, improving readability and consequently PQ rating.
Content must satisfy search intent, not just fill in spaces
The concept of Needs Met (p. 113) is central. The search result must be useful and satisfactory to the user.
A piece of content, even if written by AI, can receive a high rating if it responds appropriately, comprehensively, and relevant to the query, in a natural and understandable tone. If it’s vague, off-topic, or too general, it’s labeled “Fails to Meet.”
The risk, with AI, is to generate universal texts that do not capture the true search intent. The solution? Specific prompts and editorial review.
Google enforces strict rules on YMYL themes
Whether the content is about health, finance, safety, or civil rights, Google demands the utmost accuracy and accountability. These are the so-called Your Money or Your Life (YMYL), to which he applies the highest level of control and moderation (p. 11).
If AI generates texts on these topics without sources, without signatures, without accuracy, the content is penalized. In severe cases, it is considered potentially harmful.
The danger is that of factual errors, unverified statements or real hallucinations that AI can incur. In these contexts, AI should only be used as a support, not as a main author, and should always be supported by expert verification or editorial supervision.
Who wrote this content? Who is responsible? The guidelines (p. 35) require that pages clearly state the creator of the content and the entity responsible for the site.
Anonymity or lack of transparency reduces trust in Google’s eyes. The solution is to sign each piece of content and indicate a complete “About Us” page.
Authors must not be fake users, but real and online recognizable entities.
Google evaluates not only the page, but also the external reputation of the website and the author (p. 22). If your site is known for spammy or clickbait content, good AI text will also be penalized.
On the contrary, a good reputation built over time with links and references strengthens the credibility of content, even if it is partly generated by AI. And reputation can only be built by a human. At least for now.
AI content at scale? Risks of penalties for spam and thin content
Sections 4.6.5 and 4.6.6 warn of a very real risk: scaled content abuse. Google penalizes the massive creation of similar, duplicate content, created with “little to no effort”.
AI learns from a variety of sources on the web that it trusts. In this way, it facilitates production in quantity, but risks spreading a large amount of similar content copying from each other.
Generating thousands of similar or unsupervised pieces of content can lead to penalties for spam or thin content. The key is to limit, vary, customize.
Using AI to update content works, but only with human control
Google values freshness, especially on content that ages quickly (p. 157).
AI allows content to be updated in a timely manner and is useful in keeping articles and guides fresh, especially in industries that change frequently.
Using AI to keep a blog or editorial product alive and up-to-date can increase visibility, if done wisely and fact-checking to avoid mistakes that can negatively affect credibility.
Google rewards content that includes FAQs, markup, and useful extras
Google values elements such as FAQs, microcopy, meta tags, schema markup, tables, or interactive tools that help the algorithm rank the page positively (p. 60–72).
AI can automate a lot of this work, improving user experience and making it easier to extract snippets or rich results. But be careful: they must be useful, relevant and well written.
How to use AI to create content that Google really likes
In the end, the real question isn’t whether AI is good or bad for SEO. Instead, ask yourself how you can best use AI.
Google does not discriminate against content written with AI, but penalizes:
- useless, repetitive, superficial texts;
- content without author or context;
- sites without reputation or transparency.
On the contrary, it rewards those who use AI as an intelligent tool to improve quality, speed, depth, usability.
Google Quality Rater Guidelines are very clear: content must be useful, accurate, experiential, original and reliable. AI can help you achieve these goals but you need to know how to write effective prompts, verify, add experience, personalize.
Use AI, but always treat it as an editorial assistant, not as the author. And remember: Google rewards quality, not quantity.
