LinkedIn is moving more directly against low-quality AI-generated content in its feed. The company announced on Thursday that users will be able to click a new “seems like AI slop” button when a post appears to have been written with AI.
The change is part of a broader effort to protect the professional network from content that feels automated, inauthentic or low value. LinkedIn is also changing how its own writing tools work, shifting away from AI that rewrites a user’s post and toward proofreading that preserves the user’s voice.
Why LinkedIn is targeting AI slop now
The term “AI slop” refers to low-quality, artificially generated content. On LinkedIn, the issue matters because the platform is built around professional identity, real relationships and personal expertise. If the feed fills with synthetic posts, the value of reading, responding and sharing can decline.
In a post on LinkedIn, Chief Product Officer Hari Srinivasan described the issue as a major focus for the company. “AI slop is a top priority for all of us. We really care about this. People come to LinkedIn to connect with real people and share their real perspectives, ideas, and expertise,” he said.
That framing explains why LinkedIn is not treating the new button as a simple moderation feature. The company is also using it as a signal. When users report a post as seeming like AI slop, that feedback can help LinkedIn tune its AI models to better identify similar content.
How the new reporting button fits into the system
The new “Seems like AI slop” button is one of several measures LinkedIn says it is using to reduce low-quality AI-generated material. The reporting option gives users a direct way to flag content that feels inauthentic, especially when it appears in the feed as suggested content from outside their own network.
LinkedIn is also introducing new classifiers designed to identify AI slop and other low-quality content. The goal is to reduce how much of that material appears in suggested recommendations. That distinction matters because users may be more tolerant of posts from people they chose to follow, but less forgiving when the platform itself recommends material that feels automated.
The company is pairing those classifiers with automation defenses. According to Srinivasan, LinkedIn now blocks “hundreds of thousands” of automated comment attempts daily, along with millions of other automation attempts in just the past couple of months.
Taken together, the steps show that LinkedIn sees the problem as more than awkward writing. It includes automated comments, bot behavior, low-quality posts and AI-assisted publishing that can make the network feel less human.
Private feedback for posts that feel inauthentic
LinkedIn is also adding a private warning system for users whose posts are perceived as inauthentic because of heavy AI use. These notices will appear in users’ dashboards, rather than as public labels on their posts.
That choice creates a softer path for people who may be using AI to polish their own writing rather than to produce full-on slop. LinkedIn’s stated aim is to help those users improve their posts without necessarily treating every AI-assisted draft as a violation.
The distinction is important. The company is not saying that every use of AI in writing is the same. Instead, it is drawing a line between tools that help refine a person’s own work and content that reads as artificially generated, low quality or disconnected from a real perspective.
LinkedIn is changing its own AI writing feature
One of the more notable changes is that LinkedIn is pulling its own “enhance your post” feature. That tool had used AI to help users write posts.
LinkedIn is replacing it with a proofreading feature. The difference is subtle but meaningful: instead of changing a user’s voice, the new tool is meant to check the user’s own words.
This move aligns with the company’s broader message. LinkedIn still sees a place for AI assistance, but it wants posts to sound like the people behind them. For a network built on reputation and expertise, that may be the central tension: AI can make writing easier, but it can also make many posts feel less personal.
A wider fight across online platforms
LinkedIn is not facing the issue alone. The article places the move within a wider shift among online publishing platforms trying to reduce AI-generated content that users find frustrating.
Last week, Substack added a tool to help readers identify when content on its site was written by AI. That effort came through a partnership with Pangram. This week, Pangram announced $9 million in new funding to address AI content flooding the internet.
The issue is also affecting newer services. Digg shut down its Reddit competitor in March, saying it could not manage the number of bots flooding the site.
Internet infrastructure firm Cloudflare has said the problem is worsening, with more bot traffic on the web than human-generated requests. According to the source article, that milestone was reached faster than Cloudflare had previously predicted.
LinkedIn’s response adds another major platform to the list of companies trying to separate useful AI assistance from content that erodes trust. Its approach combines user reporting, automated detection, private feedback, verification tools and more control over comments from company pages users no longer want to see.
The larger implication is clear: platforms are no longer treating AI-generated content as just another posting format. They are beginning to manage it as a quality, authenticity and trust problem.