AI writing tools are useful for speeding up drafts, outlines, subject-line options and reformatting content, and unreliable for facts, claims and anything needing first-hand knowledge. Use them as a fast first draft that a person edits and takes responsibility for. Do not publish unreviewed output.
Where they help and where they do not
| Task | Usefulness | Main risk |
|---|---|---|
| Outlines and structure | High | Generic structure that ignores your audience |
| Subject lines and ad variations | High | Samey phrasing, claims you cannot support |
| Repurposing a post into an email or social copy | High | Meaning drifts from the source |
| First drafts of routine pages | Medium | Bland text, errors of fact |
| Product claims, prices, legal or health statements | Low | Invented or outdated information |
| Opinion, case studies, original insight | Low | Cannot supply experience you do not give it |
These tools generate likely word sequences. Google's guidance on generative AI says models do not retrieve facts, so output can contain errors, and that content should be reviewed for accuracy and quality before it is published. That applies to titles, meta descriptions and image alt text as well as body copy.
A quality-control routine
- Brief it properly. Give the audience, purpose, key points and the facts you want used. The more you supply, the less it invents.
- Check every claim. Verify names, dates, figures, quotations and product details against a primary source. Delete anything you cannot verify.
- Add what only you know. Include your own examples, customer questions, data and judgement. This is what makes the content worth reading.
- Edit for voice. Remove filler openings, repeated phrases and vague claims. Read it aloud.
- Check originality. Search a few distinctive sentences to confirm the tool has not reproduced existing text.
- Assign an owner. A named person approves each piece. If nobody would stand behind it, do not publish it.
Search and publishing considerations
Google states that using AI is not against its guidelines in itself, but that producing large volumes of pages without adding value for users can break its spam policies on scaled content abuse. The practical reading is simple: fewer, better pages with real expertise beat many thin ones. If AI helps you produce pages faster, spend the time saved on research and review, not on more pages.
Privacy, copyright and disclosure
- Privacy: do not paste customer personal data, confidential contracts or unpublished financials into a tool until you have read its data-use terms. Check if your inputs are retained or used to train models, and whether business plans offer different terms from personal ones.
- Copyright and ownership: terms differ between vendors on who owns output and what protection they offer. Read them, and take legal advice for anything high-value.
- Disclosure: Google suggests explaining how content was made where readers would reasonably expect it, and some marketplaces and platforms require AI labelling for specific content, such as product descriptions or images. Check the rules of each platform you publish on.
- Advertising rules: AI-written claims are still your claims. UK advertising standards on substantiation apply regardless of who or what wrote the copy. Check the current ASA and CAP guidance on their websites.
Choosing a tool
Compare tools on the quality of output in your own subject, controls for brand voice and style, team features such as shared prompts and approvals, integration with your editor or CMS, export options, and data-handling terms. Pricing models vary: some limit words or credits, others limit seats. Test the same three real briefs in each tool and score the results blind against a checklist. Method: how to run a software trial properly.
Switching costs are low, because content is portable, but saved prompts, brand voice profiles and templates are not. Keep a copy of your own prompts and style guide outside any one tool. For how this fits alongside search work, see SEO tools explained.
Where AI use is a poor fit
Avoid AI drafting for regulated or high-stakes content: financial, health or legal claims, safety information and anything that makes comparative promises about competitors. Those need specialist review whoever writes them. Avoid it for reviews, testimonials and case studies, which must come from real customers and real events. Fabricating them is misleading and can breach consumer protection rules. Where AI helps your team, agree a short written policy: what it may be used for, what data must not be entered, who approves publication and how AI use is disclosed. A one-page policy prevents most problems.
Measuring if the tool is worth it
After a month, compare the time to produce a finished piece with and without the tool, counting the editing and fact-checking time. If a draft takes ten minutes to generate and fifty to correct, the saving is small. Keep a log of errors the tool made. A pattern, such as invented statistics or wrong product details, tells you which tasks to take away from it.
Frequently asked questions
Is AI-written content penalised by Google?
Google says AI use is not against its guidelines in itself, but mass-produced pages with little value can breach its spam policy.
What must I check before publishing AI drafts?
Every name, figure and claim, plus titles and metadata, and that the piece contains something original from you.
Should I tell readers I used AI?
Explaining how content was made is encouraged where readers might wonder, and some platforms require labelling. Check each platform's rules.
Is it safe to paste customer data into an AI tool?
Not until you have read the data-use terms. Avoid personal or confidential data unless the contract and your legal basis allow it.