Our team uses AI to help with content creation. We’re not publishing raw AI output - we edit, add information, fact-check, etc.
But our content still feels… generic. And when I check AI platforms, our competitors’ content gets cited while ours doesn’t.
The problem: Even edited AI content often:
Questions:
Looking for practical advice, not “just don’t use AI.”
The core issue is what I call “information gain debt.”
AI-generated content problems:
| Issue | Why It Happens | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Generic insights | AI synthesizes existing content | No reason to cite you vs sources AI already knows |
| Missing experience | AI has no first-hand experience | Lacks authenticity signals |
| Predictable structure | AI follows patterns | Easy to identify as AI-generated |
| No unique data | AI can’t create original research | Nothing new to cite |
What actually makes content “human” to AI systems:
The test:
Ask: “Could another AI have written this?” If yes → lacks information gain If no → you’ve added unique value
Here’s my workflow for humanizing AI drafts:
Stage 1: AI Draft
Stage 2: Human Value Addition For EVERY section, add at least ONE of these:
[ ] Personal experience ("In my experience...")
[ ] Expert quote ("According to [expert]...")
[ ] Original data ("Our data shows...")
[ ] Specific example ("At [company], we found...")
[ ] Contrarian take ("Despite common belief...")
[ ] Unique framework ("I call this the X Method...")
Stage 3: Voice Injection
Stage 4: Verification
The ratio I aim for:
Writer’s perspective on what AI content gets wrong:
The “tells” of AI content:
What I add to make content human:
Personality:
Specificity:
Imperfection:
The humanity test:
Would you actually SAY this to a colleague? If no, it’s probably too AI-polished.
SEO perspective on why this matters for citations:
Why AI platforms deprioritize obvious AI content:
What we’ve found improves citation rates:
| Content Type | Avg Citation Rate | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Pure AI content | 3% | Almost never cited |
| Edited AI content | 8% | Slight improvement |
| AI + human expertise | 18% | Significant improvement |
| Human-first + AI assist | 27% | Highest performance |
The pattern:
The more genuine human expertise, the higher the citation rate. AI should assist, not lead.
Our process now:
Human expertise bookends the process.
Adding original data is the highest-impact humanization:
Why data matters so much:
How to add data when you don’t have research budget:
Your own analytics
Expert interviews
Mini-surveys
Competitive analysis
Case study data
The effort:
Even small data points (survey of 25 people) add more value than extensive AI text with no original information.
Editing techniques for humanizing AI content:
Red flags to edit out:
| AI Pattern | Human Alternative |
|---|---|
| “In today’s fast-paced world…” | Delete or be specific |
| “It’s important to note that…” | Just make the point |
| “One of the key aspects is…” | “The key is…” |
| “Many experts agree that…” | Name specific experts |
| “Studies have shown…” | Cite specific studies |
| Perfectly parallel structure | Vary sentence structure |
| Equal pros and cons | Take a position |
Voice injection techniques:
The audio test:
Record yourself reading the content. If you stumble or it feels unnatural, that’s an AI “tell” to fix.
The expert positioning angle:
Why expert-bylined content performs better:
AI systems associate specific humans with expertise. When content has:
It signals authenticity that AI-generated content can’t fake.
How to build this even with AI assistance:
Assign real experts to topics
Have experts contribute key sections
Let AI fill the middle
Expert final review
The result:
Content that’s genuinely authored by an expert, assisted by AI, rather than AI content attributed to a human.
This thread has completely changed how I think about AI-assisted content. Here’s my new approach:
The mindset shift:
Old: “How do we make AI content seem human?” New: “How do we use AI to support human expertise?”
New content workflow:
Expert-first planning
AI research assist
Human value layer
Voice editing
Expert sign-off
Checklist for every piece:
The ratio I’m targeting:
Human expertise: 50% AI assistance: 30% Editing/voice: 20%
Thanks everyone for the practical guidance. This is exactly what I needed.
Get personalized help from our team. We'll respond within 24 hours.
Monitor which content gets cited by AI platforms. Understand what differentiates high-performing human-quality content.
Community discussion on content authenticity and AI visibility. Whether AI-generated content is penalized and how authenticity signals affect citations.
Community discussion on using AI to create content for AI search visibility. Real experiences balancing AI-generated content quality with optimization for ChatG...
Community discussion on adding human expertise to AI-generated content. Real strategies from content teams balancing AI efficiency with authentic expertise and ...