LinkedIn cracks down on AI slop with 94% detection accuracy


TL;DR

LinkedIn is cracking down on AI-generated “slop” by suppressing generic posts from recommendations rather than removing them. The platform claims 94 per cent detection accuracy in early tests, but has shared no data on false positives.

If your LinkedIn feed has felt like it was written by one person with 10 million accounts, you are not imagining things. The platform has become a petri dish for AI-generated posts that say nothing while sounding vaguely inspirational. Now LinkedIn says it is doing something about it.

The company announced changes that will target what it calls “AI slop,” low-effort, AI-generated content that may sound polished but offers little original thought or expertise. VP of Product Laura Lorenzetti said the platform is building detection systems trained to distinguish between posts that add genuine perspective and posts that feel repetitive, generic, and empty.

In early tests, LinkedIn says its system correctly flagged generic content 94 per cent of the time. Flagged posts will not be removed. Instead, they will be suppressed from recommendations, meaning they will still be visible to a poster’s direct connections but will no longer spread across the wider feed.

The targets are specific. LinkedIn is going after outright engagement bait, recycled “thought leadership” that lacks originality, and posts with obvious AI construction patterns. The company singled out the “it’s not X, it’s Y” format as one example of the kind of formulaic AI content it plans to demote.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

The crackdown extends to comments too. LinkedIn will target bot-generated and generic AI comments that add nothing to a conversation, the kind that read like a ChatGPT summary of the post they are replying to. The platform is also going after automation tools that generate AI content at scale.

There is, however, a deliberate line being drawn. LinkedIn says AI-assisted content is still welcome, provided it contains original ideas or encourages meaningful conversation. The message is not “stop using AI.” It is “stop letting AI do all the thinking for you.

That distinction will be difficult to enforce consistently. LinkedIn’s 94 per cent accuracy claim sounds impressive, but the company has not shared data on false positives. How often legitimate posts get wrongly flagged as slop is anyone’s guess. And the platform has not said how quickly the rollout will happen, noting only that it could take several months before users see less low-quality AI material in their feeds.

The move comes as AI-generated content detection is becoming a priority across the tech industry. OpenAI recently adopted C2PA metadata and SynthID watermarks for its image outputs. ByteDance added watermarking and IP guardrails to Seedance 2.0. But text is far harder to fingerprint than images, and LinkedIn’s approach, using behavioural signals and stylistic patterns rather than watermarks, is inherently fuzzier.

The irony is hard to miss. LinkedIn is a Microsoft property, and Microsoft is one of the largest investors in OpenAI, the company whose tools produce much of the content LinkedIn now wants to suppress. The platform also offers its own AI writing assistant, which auto-generates post drafts and comment suggestions. It is, in effect, building the firehose and the filter at the same time.

Still, AI-powered content moderation has to start somewhere. LinkedIn’s feed problem is real and getting worse. If suppression works, other platforms will follow. If it does not, the company will have publicly admitted that its feed was broken by AI without managing to fix it.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


If you are a book purist, you might scoff when I recommend an e-reader instead of buying physical books, and I won’t blame you. The allure of the smell of pages, the weight of the book in my hands, the whole ritual, is hard to resist. 

However, if you allow me some leeway to convince you, there’s a strong argument to be made against physical books and in favor of using e-readers. So let me make the case for e-readers, because once you understand what you’ve been missing, it’s hard to go back.

Your entire library fits in your bag

This is the most obvious advantage, but it doesn’t get enough credit. I always read more than one book at a time, and carrying two or three physical books around is not realistic. Thick books alone are a chore to carry.

With an e-reader, you carry hundreds of books in a slim package. Switching between titles takes a second. If you travel frequently, this alone is reason enough to make the switch.

A thousand-page hardcover is great for your bookshelf but terrible for your commute.

Fat books are a workout, not a reading experience

If, like me, you are into fantasy books, you know they can be a behemoth to handle. You have to constantly shift how you’re holding it, find a way to keep it open, and somehow also stay comfortable. Thin books are fine, but the moment a book crosses a certain thickness, it starts working against you.

An e-reader weighs the same regardless of whether you’re reading a short novel or a massive fantasy series. That’s it. Whether I am reading The Count of Monte Cristo or the next book in Brandon Sanderson’s The Stormlight Archive series, my Supernote Nomad remains the same. 

Reading at night without waking anyone up

I do a lot of my reading at night, and this is where physical books completely fall apart for me. Lamps and book lights never feel comfortable. The light is never quite right, and if you share a room with someone, the whole setup becomes a problem.

Most e-readers, including Kindles, have a built-in backlight that you can dim to whatever level feels right. You can even switch to warm light mode, making it easier on your eyes. 

I’ve read at 3 AM with the brightness all the way down, and it felt completely natural. No lamp and no squinting required. 

Look up any word without losing your place

English is not my first language, and even for native speakers, encountering an unfamiliar word in the middle of a chapter is common. With a physical book, your options are to grab your phone and look it up, which almost always leads to distraction, or skip it and lose a bit of meaning.

On a Kindle or most other e-readers, you tap the word and the definition appears instantly. You can translate it, add it to a vocabulary list, and get back to reading in seconds. I look up far more words now than I ever did with physical books, and my reading comprehension is genuinely better for it.

Taking notes you’ll actually use later

I used to annotate physical books with a pen, and those notes would just sit there on the page, never to be seen again. Transferring them somewhere useful took more effort than I was ever willing to put in.

With my Supernote Nomad, I can use its Digest feature to clip what I am reading and quickly add any additional handwritten notes. I can then export those notes to Obsidian and process them. 

If you use any e-reader, highlighting a passage and adding a note will take a couple of seconds. Most e-readers also aggregate all your highlights and notes in one place, allowing you to quickly riffle through your notes without flipping pages. 

With physical books, my notes died on the page. With an e-reader, they became something I actually use.

Since these are digital notes, you can process them into your note-taking app to further digest the material.

Books are cheaper and easier to buy

Buying physical books is always more expensive than getting the digital version. Also, since most publishers are phasing out mass-market paperbacks, we are left with trade paperback and hardcover options, which may look better but also cost significantly more.

E-books don’t have that problem. I have purchased several books at less than half the price I would have paid for a physical version. Also, most of the time, e-books are on sale, making them even more affordable. 

And when you find a book you want to read at midnight, you don’t have to wait for a delivery or drive to a store. You buy it and start reading immediately. The convenience is hard to overstate once you get used to it.

Should you switch?

If you love the experience of physical books, the covers, the smell, the shelf aesthetic, that’s a completely valid reason to stick with them. There’s nothing wrong with it. I myself am curating my own bookshelf, and there will always be a place for those special books. 

But for convenience and ease of discovery and reading, I recommend you at least invest in one e-reader. It’s also one of the best times to buy them, as you can get good options around $100

Since these are e-readers, you don’t even need to upgrade them as often as your phone. If you don’t accidentally break them, they can easily last 5-6 years, making them worth the investment.



Source link