Google denies this with a ton of explanations and its trump card, the famous EEAT (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness)… It’s a fundamental concept in Google’s quality guidelines, used to evaluate the quality of web content. And we know, although it sounds like nonsense, not everyone buys the idea that it works as suggested. So the question is valid for every content creator: Human content vs. AI content: which does Google prefer?
We dug deep to see if we could find anything; unfortunately, unless you’re a Google insider and willing to break the law by breaching confidentiality agreements, there’s not much evidence.
However, the evidence available as of March 2025 to determine whether there is evidence suggesting an algorithmic preference for human-origin content is as follows:
Evidence of correlation between human content and better positioning
A recent study conducted using the Originality.AI tool reveals significant findings about the relationship between content origin and its Google ranking. The research analyzed more than 14,600 posts, comparing Google ranking with human versus AI content scoring.
The results showed a positive correlation between high human content scores and higher search results. Specifically, websites with higher human content scores achieved higher search rankings. This study suggests that Google may be prioritizing human-generated content, at least up to a certain threshold.
A particularly interesting finding indicates that human content scores above 75% correlate with higher Google rankings. However, beyond this 75% threshold, no significant additional benefits were observed, suggesting that Google’s algorithm considers content that meets or exceeds this “humanity” percentage to be satisfactory.
It is important to note that this interpretation is based on observed correlations and does NOT necessarily imply direct causality.
The threshold of acceptability for Google
The existence of an acceptability threshold suggests that Google doesn’t completely discriminate against all AI-generated content, but rather evaluates its quality and naturalness. So, when asked about Google’s preferences regarding human content versus AI content, according to the study, ” the search engine prioritizes human-generated content up to an acceptable threshold, after which other SEO factors become more significant in determining rankings.”
Google’s official stance on human content vs. AI content
To better understand this dynamic, it’s crucial to examine what Google considers “quality content.” According to Google’s official documentation, the focus is on creating useful, reliable, and human-centered content, not simply on ranking.
Google’s guidance doesn’t state a preference between human content vs. AI content, but it does draw a clear distinction between two types of content:
Content for people
Google positively values content that offers a satisfying user experience. This implies content that provides real value, complete and comprehensive information on a topic, and demonstrates dedication to its creation. This type of content is considered quality by Google and prioritized in its results.
Content for search engines
In contrast, content created solely for search engine rankings and not to help users is viewed negatively. Google can identify when content has been mechanically created with the sole purpose of manipulating rankings.
Google provides guiding questions to assess whether the content is moving in the right direction:
- Does it provide a substantial, complete, or exhaustive description of the topic?
- Does it offer valuable information compared to other pages in the results?
- Is it free of spelling or style errors?
- Is there a dedication of time and effort in its creation?
- Has the accuracy of the information been verified?
The positioning of AI-generated content
Despite the evidence favoring human content, it’s important to note that AI-generated content can effectively rank on Google. Thanks to advances in natural language processing and machine learning algorithms, AI content can meet the criteria set by search engines.
By 2025, AI programs have significantly evolved in their ability to learn and mimic human writing styles, producing coherent, engaging, and informative content. These AI-generated texts, when optimized for SEO following best practices, can achieve prominent positions in search results.
However, a critical factor seems to be that this content is not identifiable as AI-generated, but rather maintains characteristics of naturalness and human authenticity.
So if you ask us what works best in the battle between human content and AI content, the answer is… you can do it with AI, but it has to look human.
The importance of humanizing AI content
Search results clearly indicate that, regardless of the source of the content, it must sound human to be effective. Humanizing AI-generated content is presented as a key strategy to improve its ranking performance.
Satisfying user demand
Content should be primarily aimed at readers, not the search engine. Even Google suggests writing content for human readers. There’s no point in ranking content on the first page if it doesn’t meet users’ needs, as it will quickly lose rankings.
For example, if a user searches for SEO advice for their blog, they’re looking for authentic information from an expert, not random thoughts on the topic. Content that doesn’t meet this expectation will generate high bounce rates and zero results.
Current limitations of AI
Although AI tools have advanced significantly, they are still not 100% perfect. Human intervention is still necessary to add personal perspectives, real-life experiences, and nuances that AI cannot yet fully replicate.
Changes in the search landscape
It’s important to consider that the search landscape is evolving. Artificial intelligence-powered search engines like ChatGPT are gaining ground over traditional search engines like Google. According to a DMEXCO survey, the number of people choosing AI chatbots over traditional search engines to find information online is growing, although users tend to use both resources interchangeably.
Marketing and communications professionals are increasingly focused on using AI-powered search tools and are simultaneously taking steps to improve their brands’ visibility on these new channels. However, traditional search engines continue to dominate the market, with 69% of users using them primarily.
On this specific topic, we recently developed an in-depth article that talks about the future of search.
Final recommendations
In conclusion, in the battle of human content vs. AI content, the available evidence suggests that if there’s any evidence that content is human-written, it tends to rank higher on Google than content that’s clearly AI-generated. The correlation found between high scores for human content and better search rankings supports this conclusion.
However, the finding of an acceptability threshold (75% human score) indicates that Google doesn’t systematically reject all AI-generated content, but rather evaluates its quality and naturalness. The determining factor appears to be the quality and relevance of the content to users, regardless of its source.
Tips for content creators:
- If you use AI to generate content, make sure to humanize it properly so that it achieves at least a 75% human content score.
- Always prioritize user satisfaction and responding to their search intent over technical search engine optimization.
- Use AI tools as assistants in the creative process, not as complete substitutes for human judgment.
- Add personal experiences, informed opinions, and practical examples to AI-generated content to increase its authenticity.
- Thoroughly review and edit AI-generated content to ensure it meets Google’s quality criteria: usefulness, reliability, and user-focused.
In conclusion, creating valuable, authentic, and user-centric content remains the most effective strategy for SEO, regardless of the tools used to create it, whether a pen or an LLM.
