“We don’t think AI-generated content is future-proof,” stated a PR expert in response to a question about using AI for GEO-driving content creation.

I fumed.

Not because the speaker was wrong to worry about AI slop. She’s not. There is a lot of lazy, beige, regurgitated “as we navigate the ever-evolving landscape” content polluting the internet right now.

And yes, much of it was made with AI.

But here’s the part that made my penguin feathers ruffle: Not all AI-assisted content is slop. And not all human-only content is good. And there is no evidence that AI-assisted content performs better or worse in GEO.

The tool is not the villain. The lazy thinker is.

Google has already stated it doesn’t care whether content is created by humans or AI, as long as it is helpful, reliable, and valuable to the reader. So what exactly are we arguing about?

Does using AI to organize your notes count? What about using it to pull quotes from the transcripts of the GEO Conference you just attended? What about asking AI to critique the logic of a draft you wrote by hand? What about building a custom GPT trained on hundreds of your own articles, interviews, and rants so the output is unmistakably in your voice?

At what point does “AI-assisted” become a scarlet letter? And who gets to decide?

The Wrong Debate About AI Content

This is where the AI-shaming crowd loses me. The real issue isn’t how the content was made. It’s whether it’s worth reading and worth defending.

If you are not a critical thinker, you can create slop with or without a machine’s assistance. I’ve seen plenty of human-only content that reads like it was assembled by minions allergic to having a point of view.

I’ve also seen (and created) AI-assisted content that was sharp, useful, original, and clearly guided by an experienced human with judgment. That’s the variable. Not the machine. The human.

The Difference Is Judgment

Discernment is the new differentiator.

The editor who can spot a weak argument still matters. The strategist who understands the audience does too. And the CMO who refuses to confuse volume with value matters more than ever.

This is where marketing leaders need to draw the line. Not between human content and AI content, but between thoughtful content and thoughtless content.

Between work you can stand behind and work you’d rather blame on the bot.

Lead with Standards

The CMO’s job is not to ban AI-assisted content. The CMO’s job is to raise the standard for judgment.

Use AI to outline. Use it to summarize. Use it to challenge your assumptions, find holes in your argument, and turn 20 pages of notes into something worth sharing.

Use it to accelerate the work. Just don’t outsource your brain, your taste, or your accountability. And please, for the love of penguins, don’t outsource your point of view.

Because the byline matters and the reader, human or otherwise, matters even more.

If your name is on it, you own it. So let’s retire the AI shaming. The question is not, “Was AI involved?” The question is, “Is this any good?”

Written by Drew Neisser