At Onside, we get asked this question frequently and unfortunately there is not one-stop-gap solution to resolve this. However, with a humanized directive and close scrutiny AI content can deliver the desired outcome over time.
The reason is that LLMs are very good at defending the technology that powers them, but that doesn't mean their answers accurately reflect how search engines reward content. There are several reasons why AI assistants often give overly reassuring answers about AI-generated content and SEO which favors the technology but lacks performance.
But first, an important distinction: AI-generated content can rank in Google. The problem is that generating content with AI does not, by itself, create the qualities that make content rank, attract readers, or generate engagement. Saying AI content never ranks would be inaccurate. Saying AI-generated content is inherently good for SEO is equally misleading.
Why LLMs often get this wrong
1. They confuse Google's stated policy with actual ranking performance.
Google has said that it does not automatically penalize content simply because AI was used to produce it. Its focus is on quality, originality, usefulness and whether content is created primarily to manipulate search rankings.
LLMs often repeat this policy as though it proves AI-generated content is an effective SEO strategy. It doesn't. Permission to use AI is not evidence that AI-generated articles will perform well.
The strategic principle is simple: use AI to understand what deserves to be said; use human expertise to determine what is worth saying and how to say it.
2. They confuse content production with content strategy.
An LLM can produce a grammatically correct, well-structured article in seconds. But that doesn't establish that the article:
Addresses a genuine audience need or search intent.
Offers original research, first-hand experience or expert insight.
Provides a distinctive perspective that competing articles lack.
Builds trust, authority or a reason for readers to engage.
Gives readers a compelling reason to return, share or convert.
AI can increase the volume of content without increasing its value. In some cases, it simply scales the production of interchangeable articles.
3. They mistake correlation for causation.
Some websites publish AI-assisted content and achieve strong rankings. But that doesn't prove AI was responsible. Those sites may already have strong domain authority, established backlinks, expert contributors, robust technical SEO and effective distribution. Conversely, a website can publish hundreds of AI-generated articles and achieve little meaningful visibility or engagement. The relevant question isn't whether an AI-written article can rank. It is whether the editorial process consistently produces better results than a research-led, expert-guided alternative.
Lack of strategic direction and Editorial responsibility are the main causes for this.
4. They overlook the problem of sameness.
LLMs generate plausible language by predicting patterns. Without strong research, original evidence and expert direction, they often produce the same predictable explanations, headings and recommendations already found across the web.
That creates a competitive problem: if ten competitors publish essentially the same article, producing an eleventh version adds little value. Google's current guidance explicitly encourages content with distinctive perspectives and information that cannot easily be reproduced by generative AI.
5. They answer the technical question instead of the commercial one.
When asked, "Can AI content rank?", an LLM can truthfully answer yes.
But a business usually needs to know something different:
Will this content increase qualified organic traffic?
Will it attract meaningful reader engagement?
Will it improve brand authority and conversions?
Will it strengthen visibility in AI-generated search answers (GEO)?
Will it outperform the previous editorial approach?
Those questions require evidence from actual content performance, not generic explanations of what AI can do.
What about GEO and visibility in AI search?
The same distinction applies. Being machine-readable or easy for an LLM to summarize does not automatically make a page a preferred source for AI-generated answers. Google's own generative-search guidance emphasizes distinctive, useful and reliable content, rather than simply producing more pages.
An article that merely recycles common knowledge may have little reason to be selected over a more authoritative source containing original research, expert commentary, specific evidence or a genuinely different perspective.
AI-generated content can rank. But AI-generated content alone is not a reliable ranking strategy, a reader-engagement strategy or a GEO strategy.
The decisive factors are the value of the information, the strength of the editorial process, the authority of the source and the needs of the audience.
For that reason, the strongest test is not "Can AI write an article?" It is "Does this article offer something sufficiently useful, distinctive and credible that people-and search systems-have a reason to choose it?"
Like to know more? Contact: peter@onsidecontent.com
