Blog
LinkedIn now lets you tell it that a post "Seems like AI slop". That is feedback, a way of saying a post added nothing for you, not a report. Still, it is tempting to treat every post that reads like AI as something to report, and I think that is mostly wasted effort. Plenty of people write with AI now, style alone does not show which posts they are, and LinkedIn itself says it cares about something else. Judge the content, not the tool.
Writing with AI is normal now
Not literally everybody does it. Eurostat found that in 2025, 33% of people aged 16 to 74 in the EU had used generative AI tools in the previous three months, and 49% of people with a high level of formal education had. Among knowledge workers the reported share is much higher: in their 2024 Work Trend Index, based on a survey of 31,000 people in 31 countries, Microsoft and LinkedIn reported that three in four knowledge workers (75%) used AI at work. My guess is that the share among people who post on LinkedIn today is higher still.
I am one of those people. I use AI agents to build software, as I describe in How I use AI agents to build software, and I use AI tools for writing too, this article included. If a post deserved a report simply because AI helped write it, a large part of the feed would qualify, my own posts included.
Style is not proof of AI use
Even if AI use were the problem, spotting it is far from certain. OpenAI withdrew its own classifier for AI-written text on 20 July 2023 "due to its low rate of accuracy". In OpenAI's own evaluation it identified only 26% of AI-written texts as "likely AI-written", wrongly labelled human-written text as AI-written 9% of the time, and was very unreliable on texts below 1,000 characters.
Researchers who tested several widely used GPT detectors found that they consistently misclassified writing by non-native English speakers as AI-generated, and that simple prompting could get AI-generated text past them. I suspect "this sounds like AI" mostly reacts to style: a tidy list, a confident tone, a neat closing line. People write like that too, and a quick reaction to style is not proof.
Detection depends on the tool, the text and how much it was edited. In a 2025 study, five people who often use ChatGPT for writing, voting together, misclassified only 1 of 300 English non-fiction articles (Russell et al., 2025). That says little about how reliably someone scrolling LinkedIn can identify a short, edited post, and I would not turn a hunch about style into an accusation.
What LinkedIn itself says
LinkedIn's own guidance points the same way. Its help page on content created with the help of AI says that "LinkedIn's focus is not on how content is created, but whether it adds value", and that AI-assisted content is welcome when it reflects a real person's perspective, experience or expertise. Choosing "Seems like AI slop" in a post's More menu tells LinkedIn that the content did not feel valuable to you, and according to LinkedIn this feedback "does not indicate a policy violation or trigger a reporting flow" (LinkedIn Help).
A real report is something else: it is meant for content that breaks the rules. LinkedIn's Professional Community Policies ask members to use the reporting tools "responsibly and only for their intended purposes", and what they rule out includes spam, scams and phishing, fake profiles, and content that is "false, misleading, or intended to deceive". I found no rule there against writing with AI. The closest they come is a ban on synthetic or manipulated media that shows a person saying or doing something they did not, unless that is clearly disclosed. That is about deceiving people, not about which tool held the pen.
Judge the content, not the tool
So my rule of thumb is simple. Is a post spam, a scam, someone pretending to be someone else, or a falsehood presented as fact? Report it, whoever or whatever wrote it. Is it merely bland? Scroll on, or use the feedback option for what it is: a way of saying it added nothing for you. And is it accurate, useful and clearly from a real person who stands behind it? Then I do not mind which tools helped write it.
Transparency still matters. LinkedIn recommends letting others know when you have relied heavily on AI to create or modify content, and I think that is good practice: it leaves readers, not detectors, to judge the result. In that spirit: I wrote this article with the help of AI tools. The opinion, and the responsibility for it, are mine.
Want to talk about putting AI tools to good use in your work or team? Feel free to get in touch.
