Why write human-made reviews when AI can do it faster?

[ListAndFuse]

AI can generate accurate and structured reviews — no doubt. But human-written ones still hit differently.

A real person might notice something small but relatable:

“The site feels like Apple’s, but loads faster.”

That kind of observation sparks attention. AI would just say:

“The layout is modern and user-friendly.”

Correct… but forgettable.

AI gives facts.
Humans bring nuance — and that’s what gets reactions, trust, and clicks.


Curious: do you write your reviews (site, product, tools) with AI, or by hand?
What gets the best results for you?

 

[Ryuzaki]

I imagine the nuance you speak of will make a big difference in conversions.

But you can't spend 1,000 hours on one post, because the chances of ranking one post are low, and the benefit of doing so is exponentially lower than they were 4 years ago. The extra quality won't make or break anything because Google isn't playing by those rules any more. Surfacing quality posts isn't the agenda right now.

Your chances of success are going to increase by increasing the volume of content you publish. But that doesn't mean you should forgo the human touch.

This "either/or" type of thinking isn't the path forward. It's false dichotomy. The best path is almost always the middle path. In this case that means starting with AI to skip an ton of the drudgery and simple parts of the task, then go back and add the human touch. This can be done before hand during the prompting or afterwards before publication.

But either way, I'd take advantage of AI at this point in order to reach scale. You're bending probabilities, which have become increasingly low, into your favor.