Do You Care That This Post Was Not AI-Generated?

Here's my hunch: No, not really.

But could you be made to care? Maybe.

More on that in a second.

I’ve been thinking about these questions ever since the Authors Guild introduced a logo for novelists and nonfiction authors certifying their work as “Human Authored.” It’s the Guild’s response to a growing flood of AI-generated books hitting the market. As Marketplace reported, the logo is a way to appeal to consumers who might have “ethical misgivings over the way AI scrapes artists’ works without consent or threatens jobs in the creative arts.”

Will this kind of labeling make a difference?

The mixed success of labels

History offers a mixed outlook. Some labels like "organic" and "fair trade" have found success in appealing to consumer values. But these certifications inevitably lead to disputes over their meaning and allegations of manipulation. They also often underscore the fact that consumers are willing to pay for the label even when they don’t fully understand what it guarantees.

It raises a fundamental question: Do consumers actually care as much as they say, or is it their pocketbooks doing the talking? The question reminded me of this painfully funny Saturday Night Live skit about "Fast Fashion." We want cheap, but please don't tell us how it became so cheap.

Beyond books

Of course, it’s not just authors feeling the heat from AI-generated content. The tsunami of AI-generated “slop” is engulfing every corner of the internet—from news articles to online reviews, videos, music, and academic papers. Researchers at Amazon estimated that over half the internet is now AI-generated.

And it’s only the first inning, folks.

Given the direction of travel, it's worth asking: Could labeling content as "human-authored" have a broader application beyond just creative industries like writing and music? Could we see this branding on websites for professional services firms, PR agencies, or even law firms?

Imagine a law firm’s website featuring a disclosure at the bottom that says, “All content on this site was written—or at least reviewed—by humans.” Would it matter to visitors?

Credibility and voice

The relationship between a novelist and their readers is undoubtedly more intimate than the one between a law firm and its clients. But they both depend on trust.

The credibility of a firm could be compromised if its website is perceived to be littered with AI-generated content. Trust in professional services is built on the credibility of experts. If a firm's content lacks the texture and voice that can only come from a lived experience, it could leave customers feeling skeptical and unsure of its expertise.

How can website visitors tell if content was primarily generated by AI in the first place? To me, it's the voice and the construct.

My guess is that while most people may not care if a post was enhanced by AI or completely written by AI, they will if it sounds like it was. There's something icky about it.

On a recent episode of the Pivot podcast, Scott Galloway described an assignment he gave to his team to write about capital outflows from mature markets to emerging markets. The text they produced was obviously AI-generated, he said. Here’s what he told them:

"I want you to write it. And then I want you to use AI to edit it and come up with more examples. But AI can’t be the source code. It can be the condiment, it can heat it up, it can make it more spicy. But you’ve got to scramble the eggs here and you’ve got to make your points."

It's a point that speaks to the heart of what AI-generated content lacks—authenticity and intention defined by human experience. Yes, AI can assist with research and even make writing more efficient, but if it becomes the main ingredient, the connection with the audience fades.

We're all imitators

But maybe we need not be too precious about using AI. Ayad Akhtar, a celebrated playwright, touched on this when discussing his new play McNeal, which explores the role AI plays in a writer's life.

In an interview with The Atlantic, Akhtar highlighted that in the play, McNeal points out that even Shakespeare, when writing King Lear, borrowed heavily from an older play called King Leir. Imitation and adaptation, Akhtar said, are fundamental to human creation.

Akhtar even acknowledges using AI to help with the last scene of McNeal. Is his play still “human authored”? Of course, it is. Right now, AI simply can't do what he can do. But it can help.

Lines in the sand

As AI tools get more sophisticated, the lines between what is “human-authored” and what is not will blur further.

Will most of us care? It depends on how much we value authenticity, voice, and trust. In creative industries like publishing, these values are paramount, and a "Human Authored" label could be a meaningful differentiator.

I suspect in professional industries, where content is more about information and expertise than emotional connection, the impact might be less pronounced.

But I also believe there will be opportunities for firms to distinguish themselves with content that doesn't sound robotic--with a label or without.