Google has not banned AI-generated content. What it has banned is scaled content abuse, and its spam policy names the tools explicitly: using generative AI tools or other similar tools to generate many pages without adding value for users.
The gap between those two sentences is your entire decision. The production method is not the subject. Volume and worthlessness are.
The policy text, precisely
Google's definition reads: scaled content abuse is when many pages are generated for the primary purpose of manipulating search rankings and not helping users.
Three conditions sit in that sentence and all three have to be present: many pages, the purpose of manipulating rankings, and no help to the user. An article written with a tool's help that answers somebody's real question satisfies none of them.
We spell it out because most of the argument about this is stuck on the wrong question. The question is not "will Google notice?" The question is whether your page has anything the other ten do not.
What a tool cannot give you
Everything valuable in your text came from somewhere outside the text.
A number you measured yourself, a mistake you made on a real project, a price that was actually paid, a limit you hit in practice. No tool has any of these, because none of them were in its training data. Text assembled purely from general knowledge is precisely what ten competitors also have.
The test of whether a page can be copied
On this site the piece hardest for anyone to copy is a comparison of two Iranian hosts, because nobody can reproduce that table without going and measuring again. What makes it defensible is not the phrasing; it is that somebody went and got the number.
Where a tool genuinely helps
Three places, and none of them is "write the article".
Structure. Pulling out the list of questions that have to be answered, before writing. That job is tedious and a tool does it well.
Editing. Finding long sentences, repetition, and passages that say nothing. A tool is a better editor than it is a writer.
A first-pass translation. With one important condition that follows.
The mistake that gets expensive on multilingual sites
Machine-translating a text into another language produces prose where every word is right and the whole thing reads wrong. The sentence structure of the source survives, and a native reader notices in the first paragraph.
On this site all four languages are written separately rather than translated, and that is the reason. If you run a multilingual site, the simplest test is to show one of your English pages to an English speaker and not ask "is this correct?" but "does this read as written or as translated?"
Where none of this applies to you
If the content you are producing is product descriptions in a shop with a thousand items, the argument above changes shape. Generation at scale is genuinely required there, and the right approach is to base each text on that product's real data rather than to produce a thousand near-identical paragraphs.
And if your site was never built for search and your audience arrives from somewhere else, none of these constraints is your problem.
Questions people ask
Can Google detect AI content? The honest answer is that we do not know and Google has published no figure. It is also the wrong question, because the policy is written about volume and value rather than about production method.
So can I use AI to produce content? Yes, provided you add something to it that only you have. If you have nothing to add, your problem is not the tool.
What does content production cost? It depends on whether the text is assembled from general knowledge or built from experience and data. The second is more expensive and it is the only kind that holds a ranking over time.
If you want content that answers your audience's real questions, you first have to know what those questions are, and how to find the phrases a Persian audience genuinely searches for is the starting point. Written content production for your site is what we do, and we come looking for your own data and experience before writing anything. For content to have an effect the site structure has to allow it too, which is what the page checklist to run before publishing and building a site where content can actually be found are both about.
The policy text was read from Google's spam policies page on 15 August 2026 and may be updated later.
Comments & Questions
Have a question about this article? Ask, we'll answer.
No comments yet; be the first.