Everyone is using the same AI, so what...

It never really dawned on me that the obvious reason why we can all pick out AI slop is that all of the AI slop is the same. We're all using the same AI and getting the same results. Ask any HR, they are receiving 100s of identical resumes.

The creative capacity is limited.

What does that mean?

Let's take that a bit further. Imagine you are a premium business. Your clients are some of the most discerning in the world, and every transaction crawls over months, establishing trust and credibility. It's important that you are seen as the best in your field, it's the least your clients demand.

And, sure, you use AI, but you have added the 'humanize' to the prompt, so you're fine. Your LinkedIn posts are crafted carefully, with an engaging image to accompany them.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Your posts still read in the same cadence and style, or drop hints of AI that, while we cannot put our finger on it, we can feel it. Your perspective on what is happening in the industry, the same as everyone else's, and the arguments are stacked the same as well. We're all using the same AI.

Most B2B Marketers are using AI (read here), we almost have to, with budgets being cut as much as they have - yet content demand and productivity have not - AI is helping bridge the gap. But it's the same AI everyone else is using. If companies have less to spend on marketing, they are focusing on areas where,, perceptually, AI cannot yet replace and letting AI cover for copywriters.

Recycling Content

And since AI is building off of content already out there, it's learning from content published and showcased content, Reddit threads, and common threads, with less attention to the less upvoted or vastly differing opinions. The result - it's just recycling what exists, so it's no wonder we are all taking the same perspective.

However, this suggests that if you are the first to offer a perspective, there will be much more support for it in the form of copying.

A poverty of attention

Herbert Simon, the Nobel-Prize winning economist wrote that "a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention."

Soon, all of this content will have no value because, in an economy that increasingly demands creativity and uniqueness, it will be impossible to ask that of AI, so the return of the human may become the differentiator.

I wrote about this in a post previously: Luxury brands are skipping AI for human-generated content to show prestige - but it's also creating an opportunity for differentiation.

The fate of it all

If we load the social media platforms and email inboxes with AI generated content a couple things are going to happen:

1. we are not going to value the content or the platforms that we used to engage with -- I am already tired of the posts on Meta that are AI-generated and find myself visiting the platform even less.

2. Those that can connect with their content will have an impact, and finding human-generated will grow as a luxury, and I think we will recognize it as such.

I have a line. I will let AI help me in many aspects of my business, parse emails, organize files and folders, and even help me understand or communicate thoughts better, but I write. I may have to add more typos or nuances to reflect how human I really am (though I am betting AI will soon have typos or they will be artificially added by humans for added human appearance). What's your stance? How do you feel about AI-generated posts/content?

Julie Boake