Most SEO professionals use AI tools in some form now, and I do too, for research, structure, and speeding up a first pass. Where I stop is full ownership: letting AI decide what the content claims, how it's positioned, and what actually goes out under a client's name unreviewed.
Where AI genuinely helps
- Gap analysis, spotting what a content cluster is missing faster than manual review alone
- First-pass structure, outlining a piece before the real thinking happens
- Speeding up research, surfacing sources and angles worth checking further
None of this is controversial at this point, and refusing to use these tools at all would just be slower, not more principled.
Where I don't hand over ownership
The actual claims a piece makes, the specific expertise it demonstrates, the judgment calls about what to include and what to leave out. This is where the real value of the work lives, and it's also exactly where unreviewed AI output tends to fail, confidently generic, technically plausible, missing the nuance a real practitioner would catch.
The test I actually use
Could I defend every claim in this piece if a client, or a reader, pushed back on it. If the honest answer is "I'm not sure, the tool generated that," it doesn't go out. This isn't a purity test about how a draft got started, it's about whether a human who actually understands the subject stands behind the final version.
Why this matters more now, not less
As more content gets produced with heavy AI involvement, the content that's genuinely reviewed and owned by someone with real expertise becomes more differentiated, not less. The efficiency gain from AI tools is real. The differentiation increasingly comes from what happens after the draft, not from the drafting itself.
Want content that uses AI efficiently without losing the judgment that makes it trustworthy? That's the actual workflow I run.
Get In Touch