WHO WE ARE
ENTERPRISE
SMALL BUSINESS
INSIGHTS
PERSPECTIVE
Google, AI slop and the case for better content
October 12, 2026
Yes, we used a generative AI design tool to help us print these anti-AI-slop protest signs.
AI has made it possible to publish an extraordinary amount of rubbish in record time.
You know the stuff. AI slop that says absolutely nothing in 900 beautifully structured words. LinkedIn posts beginning with a dramatic revelation, followed by a life lesson nobody asked for. Business advice so generic you could replace the company name with a plumbing business, a law firm or a dog groomer and barely notice the difference.
All impeccably formatted. All confidently delivered. All with the personality of an airport carpet.
And before anyone gets defensive, I've had AI propose some absolute crackers myself. Beautifully written but completely forgettable. The sort of thing you'd consider publishing until you realised you couldn't remember a single point it made.
AI can produce something that looks remarkably like good writing without having anything particularly interesting to say. Publish it without adding experience or judgement, and we're contributing to the very thing we're complaining about.
Google just gave us another reason to analyse what we're putting into the world.
Google's existing spam policy addresses mass-produced content that adds little or no value when its primary purpose is manipulating search rankings, regardless of how it was created.[1]
Google's guidance on using generative AI for website content, last updated on 1 October 2026, recognises its usefulness for research and structuring original content. It also emphasises reviewing and fact-checking material before publication, including page titles, meta descriptions, structured data and image descriptions.[2]
It's a reality check for anyone treating AI as an unlimited content factory.
You can automate the writing. You can't automate having something interesting, worthwhile or meaningful to say.
Picture a business asking AI for 20 articles about common customer problems. They arrive looking remarkably professional, complete with headings and suspiciously enthusiastic adjectives. Someone gives them a quick read, fixes the spelling and schedules the lot.
Job done. Twenty articles published in the blink of an eye.
Except none contains anything the business has learned from its customers. No assumption challenged. No opinion anyone has thought hard enough to defend.
The business now has 20 more pages. The reader has 20 more opportunities to be disappointed.
That's the working definition of AI slop. Content produced without enough thought or scrutiny to justify the attention it asks for. Humans have been producing it for years. AI has simply made the process spectacularly efficient.
There's a difference between checking content and improving it.
Consider an experienced marketer using AI to draft an article about why customers abandon an online purchase. AI offers familiar explanations about pricing and checkout friction.
But the marketer has investigated why customers leave without buying. They know which explanations survived testing and which were convenient assumptions. They can spot where a plausible theory is being passed off as evidence, challenge the claims and explain what readers might do differently.
AI helped organise and structure the thinking. The marketer supplied the experience and judgement that made it useful and relevant.
And then there's taste.
One person's brilliant piece of writing is another person's reason to unsubscribe. A joke that delights one reader may leave another cold. Good judgement starts with knowing your audience: what they already know, what they're tired of hearing and what your experience can add.
Taste without expertise can produce beautifully written nonsense. Expertise without taste can produce something accurate that nobody wants to read.
Entertainment matters too. An article can earn its place by making someone laugh or telling a terrific story. Not every piece has to deliver a management lesson before it's allowed out of the house. Accuracy asks whether the claims hold up. Value asks whether the reader gets something useful, interesting, meaningful or entertaining. Taste is the judgement involved in choosing what to say, what to cut and how to say it for this particular audience.
A factual review won't necessarily catch a dull idea or a paragraph that should never have survived the first edit.
Google's own advice asks creators to consider who made the content, how it was made and why it exists.[3] Those questions are useful well beyond search rankings.
If you're a marketing director approving agency work at scale, who's accountable for the claims and distinctive point of view? If you're a small business owner publishing one article a month, what have you learned that customers would genuinely benefit from knowing?
When production gets cheaper, readers spend more time sorting through interchangeable pieces. Businesses doing thoughtful work have to work harder to make that thought visible.
So put an accountable human behind each piece. Check the details. Bring in something learned from real, lived experience, and know who contributed what.
Producing something is easy. Knowing whether it deserves to exist is considerably harder.
Of course, there's a certain danger in writing another thousand words about AI slop. The irony would be difficult to survive. Here's the test for this article, and anything else published with AI's help. Did you learn anything? Did you enjoy reading it? Did you recognise a real person with a point of view behind the words?
If the answer is no, I wasted my Sunday.
About the Author
Stephanie Silvester is the founder of The UnConsultants, The Agentic CMO Lab and Uncomplicated AI for Business. After 30 years leading marketing inside global organisations, she now works with leaders across every scale of business, from enterprise to owner-operated, on what it actually takes to use AI with discernment.
Sources
[1] Google Search Central, “Spam policies for Google web search”, last updated 28 August 2026.
[2] Google Search Central, “Google Search’s guidance on using generative AI content on your website”, last updated 1 October 2026.
[3] Google Search Central, “Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content”, last updated 5 October 2026.
At The UnConsultants, we run our own business on the AI systems we advise on. We leverage various AI tools to optimise our sales, marketing, and operational productivity. This article was produced by a human author with assistance from AI tools for research and drafting, however, our team maintains full editorial control and assumes sole responsibility for the accuracy and verification of the final content.
The information on this website is general in nature and does not constitute professional advice. All rights reserved.
Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others.
© 2026 The UnConsultants Pty Ltd
ABN 87 689 593 333