What is Google's official policy toward AI content?

Google has long reiterated one thing: it's not who wrote the text that matters, it's whether it's valuable to the audience. Google's AI content policy does not prohibit the use of content generation tools. What matters is that the final result answers users' questions and contributes something beyond duplicating generalities. In other words - AI content vs. SEO is not a forbidden topic, but a field for careful application.

Does "AI content" conflict with the guidelines?

No, it is not, per se. Google's Search Central documentation makes it clear that usability matters. You won't find the phrase "AI content is banned" in the terms and conditions. What you will find, however, is a warning against content that is created solely to manipulate rankings.

Guideline-compliant content is content that:

• were written with the reader in mind and what they actually want to learn,
• bring new information, interpretation or data,
• Don't duplicate the same pattern over and over again,
• Have been checked and well edited by a human being.

The problem arises when someone mass-publishes raw-generated content and adds no value to it.

What did the 2024/2025 (Helpful/Spam/Core) updates change?

The year 2024 has come thick and fast in the SEO industry. The March Core Update and changes to Helpful Content tightened the screw on sites that published low-quality bulk content. Google set a clear message: relevance, originality and transparency matter.

Key findings from the update:

1. Sites that relied on mass-produced AI content began to lose visibility.
2. Publications based on real experiences and data got a premium in the rankings.
3. Algorithms are better at picking up repetitive patterns and phrases typical of search engine-created texts.

It's worth noting that in 2025 Google has become even more aggressive towards sites with a high proportion of thin content. Even if only part of the site is filled with repetitive, low-quality articles, this can lower the rating of the entire domain and translate into drops in valuable content as well. In other words - bulk content no longer harms only single pages, but can 'pull down' the entire site.

Examples of approaches: when does AI content lose positions, and when can it rank?

Industry analysis, among others. Semrush, show clearly: if the text generated by the tool remains in raw form, it often drops in the results. In contrast, sites that use AI in a more thoughtful way tend to record good results. This is about a working model in which:

• The tool helps to prepare a sketch,
• The author adds unique data and examples,
• The text undergoes editing and shortening,
• The whole thing has a clear purpose: to help the user, not to fill the page.

The difference? Some publications exist only for the algorithm, while others actually respond to readers' intentions.

Does Google detect AI content?

This question comes back like a boomerang in every conversation about SEO. Does Google really recognize that the text was created with the support of tools? Google does not have a simple "AI detector" that automatically recognizes and penalizes content created with tools. However, this does not mean complete neutrality. Algorithms increasingly effective in catching patterns specific to low-quality content, such as repetitive patterns, lack of consistency or unnatural style. In other words, it's not about the use of AI per se, but about quality signals that indicate that the publication does not add real value. 

SEOs often point out that Google pays attention to:

• Originality and unique data,
• clear structure of the answers,
• The presence of sources and examples,
• The author's experience and authority.

The conclusion? Google's AI content policy is not to hunt for automations, but to evaluate whether a publication actually adds value. Therefore, it is safe to use the new tools, as long as the content is edited and completed by a human.

How do you create (or edit) AI content so you don't fall into spam?

Writing with the help of tools is one thing, but publishing content that really stands up for itself is a completely different story. So how do you approach this in practice to avoid the spam patch?

It is best to treat AI as a helper, not a full-fledged author. A simple workflow works well:

1. Research - first check what users are looking for, what questions come up in People Also Ask and what sources are reliable.
2. Sketch - use AI to create an initial structure or outline.
3. Expert Editorial - Add your own commentary, practical examples, data, experience.
4. Sources and facts - Weave in references to studies, reports, statistics.

Asking questions in the content is also a good way to avoid "bulk". The search engine really likes clear and encyclopedic answers, especially ones that can be easily pulled up into AI Overviews or People Also Ask. If you create a paragraph that answers one specific question and add context, your content has a better chance of visibility.

AI Overviews and People Also Ask: opportunity or threat to the movement?

When Google launched AI Overviews, the web was in an uproar. Some said it was the end of search traffic, others saw it as an additional opportunity. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. From the publishers' perspective, the risk is that more and more traffic can be "captured" by the AI summaries themselves. The user gets the answer at the top of the results and no longer has to click on the source. This means that sites relying on an advertising model or a high number of page views may suffer a drop in revenue. In the long run, therefore, AI Overviews may change the balance of power - rewarding those who provide unique content and data, while limiting the exposure of simple news articles.

Not all industries are equally vulnerable. The greatest risk of losing traffic is in topics where queries are simple and can be closed in a single response - For example, finance (exchange rates, calculators), health (definitions of symptoms, basic advice), recipes or short 'how-to' guides. The more obvious the question, the more likely the user will stop at the answer in the AIO. For complex and specialized topics, there is still a good chance that the recipient will click on the source to get the full context.

Are AI Overviews "eating" clicks? What do the data and Google say?

Early reports show that some queries actually end up reading a summary from Google. The user doesn't always have to click, since the answer is right in front of their eyes. It sounds corny, but that's not the whole truth.

On the other hand, Google emphasizes that AIO is not a replacement for content, but a quick start for the searcher. The results often include links to the sources that were used to generate the answers. This means that well-crafted sites can benefit from it.

Industry observations show that:

• General inquiries more often end up clicking on AIO,
• specialized questions drive traffic to the source,
• Short articles mass-produced "by force" are losing, while elaborate guides and analysis are gaining.

Helpful content AI is not just a fad today, but a real need. Texts that have a meaningful Q→A structure get better visibility because a search engine can easily cite them. And the reader? He appreciates that instead of watering down, he gets specifics that solve a problem.

Summary - what really "punishes" Google and what to do in 2025?

If I had to leave you with one thought, it's this: Google isn't interested in who wrote the text, it's only interested in whether someone will benefit from it. It's really that simple.

In 2025, it is worth remembering a few rules:

• Quality over method - What matters is the content, not whether it was written by a human or AI.
• Zero bulk - avoid duplicating and spamming with content that contributes nothing.
• E-E-A-T in practice - (expertise, experience, authoritativeness, trustworthiness), i.e. experience, knowledge, authority and reliable sources. In practice, this means, among other things:

- Signing the article with the author's name along with a short bio and a link to the expert profile,
- Adding sources, reports and research to the content (outbound links to credible sites),
- Weaving in figures, case studies or examples from practice,
- Building an expert profile through consistent publications on a single topic,
- Taking care of the author's brand consistency across different channels (website, social media, external publications).

• Questions and answers - create content in a form that Google will easily elevate to AI Overviews or People Also Ask.
• Expert Editorial - Even the best sketch is worth supplementing with your own comments and data.

At the end of the day, and we'll say it again, it's all about making sure that your site gives the answers that someone is really looking for. And that's the best SEO strategy you can currently take.

Sources:

1. Google Search Central Blog, Google's search engine tips for AI-generated content, published February 8, 2023, accessed online: https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/02/google-search-and-ai-content
2. Loktionova, Margarita, Does Google Penalize AI-Written Content? New Data Research, Semrush Blog, December 9, 2024, accessed online: https://www.semrush.com/blog/does-google-penalize-ai-content/
3. Peters, Jay, Google's AI Overviews now reach more than 1.5 billion people every month, The Verge, April 24, 2025, accessed online: https://www.theverge.com/2025/4/24/google-ai-overviews-1-5-billion-users