AI-written content affects SEO based on quality and usefulness, not the method of creation. Google's official stance since February 2023 is clear: they evaluate content on helpfulness, expertise, and value to users, not whether a human or machine wrote it. If your AI content answers questions accurately, demonstrates subject knowledge, and serves search intent, it can rank just fine. If it's generic filler scraped together to hit word counts, you'll struggle regardless of the author. The practical risk isn't the AI itself but how most people use it. Out-of-the-box ChatGPT or similar tools produce surface-level content that sounds confident but lacks depth, specific examples, or original insight. That's exactly what Google's helpful content system targets. We've seen AI drafts rank when they're heavily edited by someone with domain expertise who adds data, nuance, and perspective the model can't generate alone. Key factors that determine whether AI content succeeds: - Editorial oversight from someone who knows the topic cold - Fact-checking and adding specifics the AI invents or generalizes - Unique angles or proprietary data the model can't access - Proper structure for featured snippets and PAA boxes - Avoiding obvious AI tells like repetitive phrasing or hedge words At Ottawa SEO, we use AI as a drafting tool for about 40% of content workflows, but every piece gets rewritten by strategists who've run campaigns for years. The AI handles research synthesis and structure; humans add the insight and credibility signals Google rewards. A 600-word AI article published raw will usually underperform a 400-word human piece with real expertise. The bigger issue is scale abuse. If you're pumping out 50 AI articles weekly with no human value-add, you're building on sand. Google's March 2024 updates hit sites doing exactly that. One or two well-edited AI pieces per week that genuinely help your audience? That's a productivity win with minimal risk.