Google 搜索关于 AI 生成内容的指南
使用集合让一切井井有条
根据您的偏好保存内容并对其进行分类。
2023 年 2 月 8 日，星期三
长久以来，Google 一直坚信 AI 蕴含巨大的变革力量，能够提升我们提供实用信息的能力。这篇博文进一步介绍了 AI 生成的内容如何融入我们行之已久的做法，在 Google 搜索中向用户展示实用内容。
奖励优质内容（无论其制作方式为何）
Google 的排名系统旨在奖励优质原创内容，这些内容应展示我们简称为 E-E-A-T 的特性：专业性、经验、权威性和可信度。如需了解详情，请访问我们的 Google 搜索的运作方式网站。
我们重点关注内容的质量，而不是内容的制作方式。多年来，该实用指南一直在帮助我们为用户提供可靠且优质的结果。
例如，大约 10 年前，由用户生成的内容悄然兴起，并有星火燎原之势，令人产生了合理的担忧。但没有人认为，禁止大家访问所有由用户生成的内容，是合理的应对之道。相反，通过改进系统来奖励优质内容，才是更合理的做法，正如我们现在所做的一样。
自 Google 成立以来，专注于奖励优质内容一直是我们的核心工作。这一做法延续至今，其中包括我们推出了旨在呈现可靠信息的排名系统和实用内容系统。实用内容系统于去年推出，目的在于更好地确保用户在搜索结果中看到主要为用户而创建的内容，而非出于搜索排名而创建的内容。
如何利用自动化功能创建实用内容
对于自动生成的内容，我们多年来一直遵循着相同的指南。如果以操纵搜索结果排名为主要目的来使用自动化功能（包括 AI）生成内容，则此举违反了我们的网络垃圾政策。
多年来，Google 在应对企图利用自动化功能操控游戏搜索结果方面积累了丰富的经验。无论网络垃圾的制作方式为何，我们都会一如既往地积极处理垃圾网站，包括充分利用 SpamBrain 系统。
话虽如此，请务必了解，并非所有使用自动化功能（包括 AI 生成技术）生成的内容都是网络垃圾。长期以来，自动化功能一直用于生成实用内容，例如体育赛事比分、天气预报和转录内容。AI 能够助力表达能力和创造力再上新台阶，并且是帮助用户为网页创作精彩内容的重要工具。
这与我们一直以来秉持的理念如出一辙，即希望利用新技术为用户赋能。我们将继续采取这种负责任的做法，同时在 Google 搜索的信息质量和整体内容实用性方面保持严苛标准。
我们为考虑使用 AI 生成技术的创建者提供的建议
如上所述，无论内容的制作方式为何，要想在 Google 搜索上取得理想成效，应致力于创作原创、优质、以用户为中心的内容，并展示出 E-E-A-T 的特性。
如需深入了解 E-E-A-T 的概念，创作者可以参阅我们的创建实用、可靠、以用户为中心的内容帮助页面。此外，我们更新了此网页，在如何创作内容方面，添加了关于“对象、方式和原因”思维方式的相关指南。
无论您使用的是否为 AI 生成的内容，只要以这种方式评估您的内容，就能得到我们系统的奖励。
发布者：Google 搜索质量团队代表 Danny Sullivan 和 Chris Nelson
常见问题解答
为进一步提供帮助，以下列举了关于 AI 内容和 Google 搜索的一些常见问题解答：
AI 内容是否违反了 Google 搜索的指南？
适当使用 AI 或自动化功能并不会违反我们的指南。也就是说，不得将其用于生成以操纵搜索结果排名为主要目的的内容，否则便会违反我们的网络垃圾政策。
为什么 Google 搜索不禁止 AI 内容？
自发布之日起，自动化功能就一直用于创建实用内容。AI 能够以令人兴奋的全新方式协助生成实用内容。
Google 搜索会如何防止质量低劣的 AI 内容操控搜索结果？
质量低劣的内容对 Google 搜索而言并非新挑战。多年来，我们一直在着力处理由用户和自动化功能创建的劣质内容。我们当前不仅有用于评估内容实用性的系统，还有用于提升原创新闻报道排名的其他系统。我们会继续定期改进这些系统。
Google 会如何处理可能传播虚假信息或与重要主题方面的共识相悖的 AI 内容？
不管是用户生成的内容，还是 AI 生成的内容，都存在这些问题。无论内容的制作方式为何，我们的系统都会设法呈现来自可靠来源的优质信息，而非与重要主题方面广泛达成的共识相悖的信息。如果信息质量对于主题（例如健康信息、公民信息或财务信息）而言至关重要，那么我们的系统会更加重视可靠性的信号。
Google 搜索如何判断 AI 是否被用于生成垃圾内容以操控搜索结果？
我们可以借助各式各样的系统（包括 SpamBrain）分析模式和信号，识别垃圾内容（无论其制作方式为何）。
AI 内容会在 Google 搜索中获得较高的排名吗？
我是否应使用 AI 生成内容？
如果您将 AI 视作一种协助制作原创实用内容的基本方法，那么不妨考虑一下。如果您将 AI 视作一种操纵游戏搜索引擎排名的低成本且简单的方法，那么不要使用 AI。
我是否应为所有内容添加作者署名？
如果根据合理的判断，读者应了解作者信息（例如任何会让人想知道“作者是谁”的内容），则建议您提供准确的作者署名。
请注意，显示在 Google 新闻中的发布商应使用署名和作者信息。如需了解详情，请参阅我们的 Google 新闻政策页面。
我是否应为内容添加 AI 或自动化功能披露声明？
如果内容可能会让用户思考“它是如何创建的”，那么 AI 或自动化功能披露声明会非常有用。请考虑在合理预期的情况下添加这些内容。
我可以将 AI 列为内容的作者吗？
如果 AI 参与了内容的创作，我们建议向读者清楚说明情况，但在作者署名中添加 AI 可能不是最佳方式。
如未另行说明，那么本页面中的内容已根据知识共享署名 4.0 许可获得了许可，并且代码示例已根据 Apache 2.0 许可获得了许可。有关详情，请参阅 Google 开发者网站政策。Java 是 Oracle 和/或其关联公司的注册商标。
[null,null,[],[[["\u003cp\u003eGoogle Search prioritizes high-quality content that demonstrates E-E-A-T (expertise, experience, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness), regardless of how it's created, including by AI.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eUsing AI to generate content solely for manipulating search rankings is against Google's spam policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eGoogle's systems are designed to identify and demote spam, including content generated through automation, while rewarding original, helpful content.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eContent creators should focus on producing original, high-quality, people-first content, whether using AI or not, to succeed in Google Search.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eTransparency about the use of AI in content creation is encouraged, with disclosures and appropriate bylines where relevant.\u003c/p\u003e\n"]]],["Google focuses on rewarding high-quality content, regardless of whether it's human or AI-generated. Using AI to manipulate search rankings violates Google's spam policies, but AI's use for creating helpful content is acceptable. Creators should prioritize original, people-first content demonstrating expertise, experience, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness (E-E-A-T). Google's systems evaluate content helpfulness and use signals to identify spam. AI-generated content should include clear disclosures and author information when reasonably expected.\n"],null,["# Google Search's guidance about AI-generated content\n\nWednesday, February 8, 2023\n\n\nAt Google, we've long believed in the power of AI to transform the ability to deliver helpful\ninformation. In this post, we'll share more about how AI-generated content fits into our\nlong-standing approach to show helpful content to people on Search.\n\nRewarding high-quality content, however it is produced\n------------------------------------------------------\n\n\nGoogle's ranking systems aim to reward original, high-quality content that demonstrates qualities\nof what we call E-E-A-T: expertise, experience, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness. We share\nmore about this [in our How Search Works site](https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/how-search-works/rigorous-testing/).\n\n\nOur focus on the quality of content, rather than how content is produced, is a useful guide that\nhas helped us deliver reliable, high quality results to users for years.\n\n\nFor example, about 10 years ago, there were understandable concerns about a rise in mass-produced\nyet human-generated content. No one would have thought it reasonable for us to declare a ban on\nall human-generated content in response. Instead, it made more sense to improve our systems to\nreward quality content, [as we did](https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/finding-more-high-quality-sites-in.html).\n\n\nFocusing on rewarding quality content has been core to Google since we began. It continues today,\nincluding through our [ranking systems](/search/docs/appearance/ranking-systems-guide)\ndesigned to [surface reliable information](/search/docs/appearance/ranking-systems-guide#reliable-information-systems)\nand our [helpful content system](/search/updates/helpful-content-update). The helpful\ncontent system was introduced last year to better ensure those searching get content created\nprimarily for people, rather than for search ranking purposes.\n\nHow automation can create helpful content\n-----------------------------------------\n\n\nWhen it comes to automatically generated content, our guidance has been consistent for years.\nUsing automation---including AI---to generate content with the primary purpose of manipulating\nranking in search results is a [violation of our spam policies](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#scaled-content).\n\n\nGoogle has many years of experience dealing with automation being used in an attempt to game search\nresults. Our spam-fighting efforts---including our [SpamBrain system](/search/blog/2022/04/webspam-report-2021)---will\ncontinue, however spam is produced.\n\n\nThis said, it's important to recognize that not all use of automation, including AI generation, is\nspam. Automation has long been used to generate helpful content, such as sports scores, weather\nforecasts, and transcripts. AI has the ability to power new levels of expression and creativity,\nand to serve as a critical tool to help people create great content for the web.\n\n\nThis is in line with how we've always thought about empowering people with new technologies. We'll\ncontinue taking this responsible approach, while also maintaining a high bar for information quality\nand the overall helpfulness of content on Search.\n\nOur advice for creators considering AI-generation\n-------------------------------------------------\n\n\nAs explained, however content is produced, those seeking success in Google Search should be looking\nto produce original, high-quality, people-first content demonstrating qualities E-E-A-T.\n\n\nCreators can learn more about the concept of E-E-A-T on our\n[Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content](/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content)\nhelp page. In addition, we've updated that page with some guidance about thinking in terms of\n[Who, How, and Why](/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content#ask-who-how-why)\nin relation to how content is produced.\n\n\nEvaluating your content in this way, whether you're using AI-generated content or not, will help\nyou stay on course with what our systems seek to reward.\n\nPosted by [Danny Sullivan](https://mastodon.social/@searchliaison)\nand [Chris Nelson](https://www.linkedin.com/in/nelso/),\non behalf of the Google Search Quality team\n\nFAQ\n---\n\n\nTo further help, here are some answers to questions you may have about AI content and Google Search: \n\n### Is AI content against Google Search's guidelines?\n\n\nAppropriate use of AI or automation is not against our guidelines. This means that it is not used\nto generate content primarily to manipulate search rankings, which is\n[against our spam policies](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#scaled-content). \n\n### Why doesn't Google Search ban AI content?\n\n\nAutomation has long been used in publishing to create useful content. AI can assist with and\ngenerate useful content in exciting new ways. \n\n### How will Google Search prevent poor quality AI content from taking over search results?\n\n\nPoor quality content isn't a new challenge for Google Search to deal with. We've been tackling poor\nquality content created both by humans and automation for years. We have existing\n[systems](/search/docs/appearance/ranking-systems-guide) to determine the\n[helpfulness of content](/search/updates/helpful-content-update). Other systems work\nto elevate [original news reporting](https://blog.google/products/search/original-reporting/).\nOur systems continue to be\n[regularly improved](https://status.search.google.com/products/rGHU1u87FJnkP6W2GwMi/history). \n\n### How will Google address AI content that potentially propagates misinformation or contradicts\nconsensus on important topics?\n\n\nThese issues exist in both human-generated and AI-generated content. However content is produced,\nour systems [look to surface high-quality information](/search/docs/appearance/ranking-systems-guide#reliable-information-systems)\nfrom reliable sources, and not information that contradicts well-established consensus on important\ntopics. On topics where information quality is critically important---like health, civic, or\nfinancial information---our systems place an even greater emphasis on signals of reliability. \n\n### How can Search determine if AI is being used to spam search results?\n\n\nWe have a variety of systems, including [SpamBrain](/search/blog/2022/04/webspam-report-2021),\nthat analyze patterns and signals to help us identify spam content, however it is produced. \n\n### Will AI content rank highly on Search?\n\n\nUsing AI doesn't give content any special gains. It's just content. If it is\n[useful, helpful, original, and satisfies aspects of E-E-A-T](/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content),\nit might do well in Search. If it doesn't, it might not. \n\n### Should I use AI to generate content?\n\n\nIf you see AI as an essential way to help you produce content that is helpful and original, it\nmight be useful to consider. If you see AI as an inexpensive, easy way to game search engine\nrankings, then no. \n\n### Should I add author bylines to all my content?\n\n\nYou should consider having accurate author bylines when readers would reasonably expect it, such\nas to any content where someone might think, \"Who wrote this?\"\n\n\nAs a reminder, publishers that appear in Google News should use bylines and author information.\nLearn more on our [Google News policies](https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/6204050)\npage. \n\n### Should I add AI or automation disclosures to my content?\n\n\nAI or automation disclosures are useful for content where someone might think \"How was this created?\".\nConsider adding these when it would be reasonably expected. \n\n### Can I list AI as the author of content?\n\n\nGiving AI an author byline is probably not the best way to follow our recommendation to\n[make clear to readers](/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content#how-the-content-was-created)\nwhen AI is part of the content creation process."]]
