The problem with AI on LinkedIn isn't AI
AI lets poor work look passable. That's the problem.
Is it bad to use AI to write your LinkedIn posts? Because almost everyone is doing it. My take? The problem isn't about AI, but humans.
Let's talk about AI use on LinkedIn. Because it's everywhere.
AI everywhere
For some weeks now, I've run random LinkedIn posts through the paid version of Pangram AI-detector, which I've found to be very accurate from my own use.
To my surprise, I've found AI use in viral content, highly engaged posts, and by creators with huge follower counts.
In fact, one top creator even uses AI to write lengthy and encouraging responses to comments left by readers, in 10 out of 10 comments I sampled. I'm not sure what to make of it yet.
AI use is a contentious topic. Moreover, everyone uses it differently and with varying levels of reliance. So to be clear, I'm talking about using AI to write LinkedIn posts from scratch, not to edit them.
Signal loss
It used to be that being able to put words on a page took a certain amount of effort. This became a widely used signal about competence and value.
Today, AI can generate copious coherent-looking text in seconds. To evaluate whether something is worth reading, one has to, well, read it in its entirety.
And this is a challenge that is happening everywhere. HR is inundated with AI-written CVs and cover letters. Managers are confronted with AI-generated "workslop." Editors are faced with AI-crafted opinion pieces.
It's not that AI-created content is automatically bad. However, AI does allow poor work to look "passable" at first blush.
What riles me is investing time to read a post, only to discover it's nothing more than candy floss: all volume, no substance.
Is there well-written AI content? I'm sure there is. Unfortunately, it's getting swamped by AI slop.
AI use as a signal
One analyst who reads extensively told me he simply doesn't read AI-written content, calling it a waste of his time.
Personally, I think the context of AI use matters, as well as the quality of output. For instance, AI use in customer service emails, FAQs on websites, or even product brochures is fine with me.
What I'm doing: using AI use as an additional signal to shape my opinion of whether a creator is worth paying attention to.
This means I am fine with posts that contain fresh ideas or thought-provoking insights, even if they use AI. Conversely, I'll be more critical of shallow or meandering posts written using AI.
What about you? Do AI-written posts change your appraisal of their quality?
