Will Crawlers Sniff Out Your AI Content?

You know that moment when you hit “publish” on a blog post drafted by an AI and lean back in your chair with a smirk because it took you half an hour instead of all afternoon? Of course, you’ll tell your boss it took you all afternoon…

Well, just over the horizon, there’s a question: will the engines (especially Google) or the next wave of AI systems catch up with you and sniff out your use of AI? And if they do, will your content be one of the casualties?

(By the way, I’ve waited this long to justify using a real non-AI dog as my main blog image – worth it.)

Here’s the thing: it’s not about whether you used AI. It’s about how you used it. And how fast the rules and context are shifting around you…

The Landscape Right Now

Google has said, more than once, that using generative AI tools is not inherently against its rules. This is stated in Google’s own guidance.

What they are concerned about is the use of AI or automation to produce many pages “without adding value for users” – that’s flagged under their spam / scaled abuse policy.

In plain speak: you won’t be penalised simply for saying “I used an AI to draft this”. But if you say “I used an AI to crank out 100 posts overnight, edited them lightly, then published them and left the site”, you might be leading yourself into a trap.

What’s changed recently is that Google’s Search Quality Rater Guidelines now explicitly mention generative AI content, and they emphasise that content which is almost entirely AI-generated, with “little or no originality, little or no added value”, is to be treated as “Lowest” quality.

So the safe zone is still there, but the margin for error is getting narrower.

Why The Anxiety Is Legit

Let’s say you publish a piece of AI-drafted content, it ranks nicely, people click. But then you notice a drop in Google Search Console. Maybe it doesn’t show “manual action”. Maybe it’s just that your traffic tumbles…

You dig in and you discover: user engagement is shallow, exit rates are high, time on page low. Maybe your piece reads like dozens of others. Maybe you rushed the editing. Maybe the insight is thin. You wonder: Was it the AI? Or was it us being lazy?

There are a few specific fault lines here:

Pattern detection. Google’s systems are designed to detect “mass produced” or “thin” content: high volume, low uniqueness = risk. Even if human-written, this would be a trouble spot. With AI it becomes easier to slip into that zone.

Human review required. Google’s personnel have confirmed that if AI content is to be acceptable, it needs human curation/editing. As one of their own put it: “human curated” is a better phrase than “human created”.

The baseline is shifting. The “good enough” bar today may not be “good enough” tomorrow. As more people use AI, the traffic benefit of being just “average” will shrink. The premium will be on unique voice, authority and experience.

So you’re not being punished for using AI. You might be punished (or suffer) because you used it in a way that exposed you to risk. Risky is not good.

What’s Coming Over the Next Few Years

If I map what I see, here’s how I believe this will play out, and what you should watch…

Imagine a horizon where: AI is ubiquitous, detection is stronger, user behaviour is smarter and search engines expect more.

Firstly, search engines will get much more intelligent about identifying content that adds genuine value. They’ll ask (silently in the algorithms): “Is this content unique? Is it written for humans? Does it reflect real experience, voice, insight?”. The fact that Google already emphasises the “EEAT” framework – experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness – means human factors are going to matter ever more.

Secondly, “acceptable” AI-generated content will require deeper human intervention. Running a text through an AI, then pressing publish, will increasingly feel like the “cheap” version, and you’ll be competing with those who went the extra mile. AI as first draft + human as final researcher/curator/editor will become the standard.

Thirdly, the risk shifts from “penalty” to “invisibility”. Instead of Google slapping a red mark, the effect might simply be: your content never ranks. It’s indexed (maybe), but it sits on page 30. Or user signals kill its momentum. This invisibility is a real cost.

Fourth, transparency (even if not formally required) might begin to matter. If you’re part of a brand, your audience may ask: “Who wrote this? Can I trust it?” If it looks generic, thin, like a thousand other sites, your brand loses.

Also, there is the emerging capability of detection tools (though still early) for AI-generated content. And more broadly, the ecosystem around “AI slop” (low-effort generated content) is going to get cleaned up.

In short: the strategy needs to evolve. Leveraging AI isn’t going away. But leaning on AI instead of human quality, brand voice, editorial oversight – that is going increasingly into the danger zone.

So… Will You Get in Trouble?

If you’re wondering, “Is my use of AI going to get me penalised by Google?”, let’s unpack it.

You’re safe in the sense that using AI as a tool isn’t banned. Google says so.

But you’re exposed if your process goes like: fire AI tool → publish without meaningful editing → repeat at scale → content lacks real depth or distinctiveness → you rely on rankings without a brand strategy to support it.

In other words, the trouble comes not from the AI draft itself, but from the lack of human oversight, differentiation and value. And those are things search engines, audiences and brands all pay attention to.

If you combine AI with strong human editing, brand voice, unique perspective, high value to users… you’re on solid ground. If you treat AI as a shortcut to “just get content out there”, you’re skating on thin ice.

My No-Bullsh*t Checklist

Ask yourself these things.

• Does this piece of content serve your audience’s real problem, not just what you think the algorithm wants?
• Have you given it your brand’s unique angle, your voice, your insight – something no generic AI tool could produce without your hand?
• Have you reviewed it for accuracy, relevance, readability, flow – not just grammar and keywords?
• Are you publishing with a mindset of “trust/authority/brand” and not just clicks?
• If you looked at your content six months from now, would it still hold up or would you cringe at “that sounds like a generic post”?
• Are you monitoring how users interact with the content (exit rates, time on page, conversion) and ready to improve, edit or pull when it’s underperforming?
• Is your broader strategy clear: content connects into your brand narrative, community, offers… not just standalone blog posts?
• Are you comfortable that someone could look and say “Yep, this person added value here” rather than “Yep, that looks like it was generated and thrown online”?

If you answer “yes” to most of those, you’re playing smart.

If not, you’re skating on thinner ice than you think.

Offer Something Unique

Here’s the bottom line. This isn’t about “AI content = doom”. It’s about “AI content without a strategy, without a brand, without human judgement = danger”.

The risk is real, getting more visible. The opportunity is still there, wide open.

Your brand, your voice… that’s going to be what survives. The engine (Google, or whatever is next) doesn’t mind that you used AI. It cares if the outcome is weak, generic, uninspiring. It cares if users don’t engage. It cares if you aren’t offering something unique.

So if you’re out to use AI to crank volume and hope for the best, then you’d better hope for less.

If you’re using AI as a tool to elevate your brand, to deliver real insight, to be distinct, then you’re ahead of the pack.

Use the tool. But don’t give it the steering wheel. You drive.

If you want a content strategy agency to help you fulfil your dreams of high-ranking human-led content, then get in touch with us today.