It’s a label that people around the world are eager to use and to apply directly to the brands that produce it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The data backs up the sentiment, too. Klaviyo’s <\/a>2026 AI consumer research<\/a> found that only 5% of APAC consumers fully trust AI-generated brand content. A 2026 Gartner survey<\/a> found that half of US consumers would prefer to give their business to brands that don’t use generative AI in customer-facing content at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the vast majority of cases, the problem is the absence of proper editing and human oversight. It\u2019s fixable \u2013 but this is where humans retain their edge over AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Below are nine signs that AI slop is creeping into your marketing, and what to do about each.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The vocabulary AI red flags in 2023 and 2024, such as delve, tapestry, realm, and leverage, have mostly faded as newer models have been trained out of those habits. What’s stuck around are structural patterns:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some of these are pretty easy to prompt for or against. Others are more insidious and need careful attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The longer a piece becomes, the more likely AI is to resort to some level of efficiency and symmetry. Be aware of this, as you might scan a few lines and think it\u2019s decent, but when you take the piece as a whole, it dawns on you that it\u2019s very much AI-identifiable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AI generally has a low diversity of vocabulary, while selecting convoluted words and robotic turns of phrase. For example, a blog post “navigates” a topic instead of “covering” it. An update “represents a significant shift in approach to…” instead of “changes how we do…”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Again, some of these have been trained out, but new versions persist, and despite being subtler, they\u2019re still identifiable. Here are some examples:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The test here is quite simple. Ask, do humans write or talk like this? Get in the habit of reading content aloud in your head. Most content should sound like a lifelike conversation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AI excels at producing details but ultimately hedges. There\u2019s no opinion. No “we think,” contrarian observations, or concrete predictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Google now has a name for this. Asked what creators should focus on in the AI search era, Search Liaison Danny Sullivan singled out \u201c<\/a>commodity content<\/a>\u201d as the thing to stop making \u2013 information that’s widely available with no unique perspective or expertise, and is interchangeable with what’s on any other site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Google’s <\/a>May 2026<\/a> core update is hitting aggregator-style pages with no original input hardest, while content built on original data, named experts, and first-hand insight is performing better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/a>1. The Em-Dash and Structural Red Flags<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/artificialintelligencesummit.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-10.25.59-1024x588.png\")
<\/a>2. Convoluted Yet Repetitive Vocabulary for Simple Ideas<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/artificialintelligencesummit.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-09.56.20-1-1024x774.png\")
<\/a>3. No Point of View<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n