Generally, the full AI generation of articles with minimal human intervention that your startup promotes is considered spam, even if it's more "honest" spam. Your one-pager has the line "Finally, AIMD takes over the writing process, crafting the article for you."
That alone may not affect people on HN upvoting an article on vector similarity but it could get it flagged if people started looking deeper.
If that's the criteria, then fair, but AIMD produces articles that are virtually indistinguishable from what an average copywriter would compose if you hired them.
AIMD is very different from your typical article generators (like https://writesonic.com/, which good God I don't know why anyone would use, but they are doing good, so good for them) that is just spinning out LLM-written content. AIMD orchestrates a multi-step process of topic discovery, source research, content summary, fact validation, hypothesis generation, outline planning, and only then writing. Content generation is a tiny surface area of AIMD, for which I am the least excited. It is really meant to generate a data-rich starting point for writing a high-quality article, rather than produce something that's ready to post. That is also reflected in the product: the content score is based (among other variables) on the % of insights added by the editor VS generated.
If that's the criteria, then fair, but AIMD produces articles that are virtually indistinguishable from what an average copywriter would compose if you hired them.
That may well be true, but my take would be that whether something qualifies as "SEO Spam" or not depends largely on the intent of the content. If it's intended to provide useful information that will benefit the reader first and foremost, and has a side effect of promoting your business, then that's good. But I'd consider content intended primarily to function as part of a "content marketing" strategy or SEO campaign to be "SEO spam" no matter how well written it is, and regardless of whether it's written by a human or an AI.
I mean to cast no judgment on your business (hell, I could see giving it a try at some point, truth be told) but just be aware that a LOT of people are going to have the "you're just pitching SEO spam" reaction seen above. Whether that matters to you or not, is up to you of course.
I appreciate this conversation. It gives me ideas how to think about the future copy of the landing page. Truth be said, that landing page and most of the blog posts were made haphazardly in a single afternoon. Heck, many people think that AIMD is only used for generating copy for comics... It is well overdue for a refresh based on all the learnings.
Comments
Generally, the full AI generation of articles with minimal human intervention that your startup promotes is considered spam, even if it's more "honest" spam. Your one-pager has the line "Finally, AIMD takes over the writing process, crafting the article for you."
That alone may not affect people on HN upvoting an article on vector similarity but it could get it flagged if people started looking deeper.
If that's the criteria, then fair, but AIMD produces articles that are virtually indistinguishable from what an average copywriter would compose if you hired them.
AIMD is very different from your typical article generators (like https://writesonic.com/, which good God I don't know why anyone would use, but they are doing good, so good for them) that is just spinning out LLM-written content. AIMD orchestrates a multi-step process of topic discovery, source research, content summary, fact validation, hypothesis generation, outline planning, and only then writing. Content generation is a tiny surface area of AIMD, for which I am the least excited. It is really meant to generate a data-rich starting point for writing a high-quality article, rather than produce something that's ready to post. That is also reflected in the product: the content score is based (among other variables) on the % of insights added by the editor VS generated.
If that's the criteria, then fair, but AIMD produces articles that are virtually indistinguishable from what an average copywriter would compose if you hired them.
That may well be true, but my take would be that whether something qualifies as "SEO Spam" or not depends largely on the intent of the content. If it's intended to provide useful information that will benefit the reader first and foremost, and has a side effect of promoting your business, then that's good. But I'd consider content intended primarily to function as part of a "content marketing" strategy or SEO campaign to be "SEO spam" no matter how well written it is, and regardless of whether it's written by a human or an AI.
I mean to cast no judgment on your business (hell, I could see giving it a try at some point, truth be told) but just be aware that a LOT of people are going to have the "you're just pitching SEO spam" reaction seen above. Whether that matters to you or not, is up to you of course.
I appreciate this conversation. It gives me ideas how to think about the future copy of the landing page. Truth be said, that landing page and most of the blog posts were made haphazardly in a single afternoon. Heck, many people think that AIMD is only used for generating copy for comics... It is well overdue for a refresh based on all the learnings.