Created from a single voice note with Agent Craft

Can you actually tell the difference between good AI content and bad…

Can you actually tell the difference between good AI content and bad AI content? Most people say yes. Most people are wrong. Here's what I've noticed after running six companies and spending the last couple of years building content workflows with AI: the people who shout "AI slop" the loudest are often the ones least equipped to describe what makes content genuinely good. They've confused the symptom with a diagnosis. So let me give you something you can actually use. A practical way to evaluate AI-assisted content before you publish it, not after you cringe at it. The problem isn't that AI produces bad content by default. The problem is that generic AI produces generic output. Put nothing in, get nothing out. That's not a flaw in the technology, it's a flaw in how people are using it. HubSpot's campaign assistant, mass prompt templates, zero business context, no actual voice. That produces AI slop. Of course it does. But blaming AI for that is like blaming a kitchen because someone can't cook. What you want to check for is context bleed. Or rather, the absence of it. When you read a piece of content, ask yourself one question: could this have been written about any company in any industry? If the answer is yes, it's slop regardless of whether a human or a machine wrote it. Most bad corporate content was slop long before AI existed. AI just makes it faster and cheaper to produce at scale. Good content bleeds context. It contains things only you would know. Specific customers. Specific decisions. Specific language your buyers actually use, not the language of your industry association's press releases. When an exec shares why a product decision got made, or explains what a customer actually worries about versus what the industry assumes they worry about, that's content nobody else can replicate. AI can shape it, format it, publish it. But it can't invent that context. That's yours. So here's the quality test I actually use: Read the content and ask three things. One: is there anything in here that could only come from this company's specific experience? Two: does the voice sound like a person who has opinions, or like a system trying not to offend anyone? Three: would a potential customer read this and feel like they understand the business better, or just feel like they've read another piece of content? If you're hitting yes, yes, and yes, the content is working. If you're hitting no on any of those, it doesn't matter how clean the prose is. It's not doing the job. The people winning at content right now are not the ones who refuse to use AI. They're not the ones proudly hand-crafting every word either. They're the ones who understand what AI can't replace, and make sure that thing is present every time. Your knowledge. Your customers. Your actual point of view. Get those into the machine and what comes out isn't slop. It's thought-leading content that pre-sells customers before they've ever had a conversation with your sales team. That's the only benchmark that matters.