AI Content study

Yes, with some caveats. In the eo AI Content Study, chatbots like ChatGPT achieved surprisingly good results in terms of language and met the defined quality standard of 75 percent across many criteria. You can rely on AI, especially when it comes to language quality – that is, grammar, spelling, and clarity. However, the texts are weaker when it comes to targeting specific audiences and, to some extent, pure SEO optimization. Therefore, texts ready for publication still require manual review and editing.

Hardly. In the study’s blind tests, even trained SEO copywriters found it difficult to reliably identify AI-generated text. The accuracy rates varied widely, and not a single test subject correctly identified all versions. Supposed AI markers, such as rigid structures or unusual phrasing, sometimes even led to incorrect conclusions, because humans make such mistakes as well. The assumption that AI-generated texts can be clearly identified has thus not been confirmed.

The most important factor is the prompt, true to the saying “garbage in, garbage out.” The more specific and detailed you make the task and the more relevant information you provide to the AI, the better the result will be. A proven prompt setup includes a clear task, context (what role the AI should play), and modification (the target audience for the text). Good training texts used as templates further improve the output. Standard prompts, on the other hand, are rarely sufficient.

As things stand, no. AI takes many tasks off the hands of experienced copywriters and significantly speeds up production, but humans remain indispensable for high-quality content that meets E-E-A-T standards. Chatbots lack personal experience, emotional intelligence, and the ability to reliably evaluate sources and facts. AI works best as a sparring partner: it provides the foundation, while humans ensure quality, uniqueness, and genuine added value.