LinkedIn AI Slop: Why Authenticity Is Now a Key Asset
Luiz D'Elboux analyzes the saturation of AI-generated content and outlines the limits of automated writing.
The surge of automated content on LinkedIn has pushed the platform to test tools targeting AI slop. In a conversation on Marketing - The Podcast, Luiz D'Elboux explains how over-automation harms professional reputations and why personal perspectives remain irreplaceable.
Luiz D'Elboux, a board member and advisor for SaaS companies, analyzed the impact of so-called AI slop on professional social networks during a conversation with Bruno Gimenes on Marketing - The Podcast, focusing on recent dynamics on LinkedIn. The discussion comes as the platform begins testing features that allow users to flag mass-generated, generic AI content.
According to D'Elboux, the surplus of automated posts undermines the core value proposition expected of a professional network. In the video above, you can watch the full discussion on balancing technological productivity with personal branding.
The loss of authenticity in professional writing
Evaluating the saturation of automated articles on LinkedIn, D'Elboux emphasizes that platform users expect real-world experiences and distinct personal perspectives, not just impersonal summaries of facts. In his view, AI's linguistic standardization makes these texts immediately recognizable and exhausting to read.
"I think that for LinkedIn, especially for long-form articles, what I expect to see is genuine experience—the person's own words, the situation they faced and lived through, or their own analysis where they bring their personal knowledge and life experience to bear on a topic," D'Elboux points out.
The core issue, according to D'Elboux, goes beyond the annoyance of repetitive posts: outsourcing writing to AI tools can erode professionals' critical thinking skills. "And what's worse is that people are stopping having opinions. Why? Because they rely so heavily on AI that they can no longer formulate their own perspective on an event. That's a problem that transcends any single platform—it's a very serious issue," he states.
The boundary between operational support and authorship
Despite his criticism of generating entire opinion pieces with AI, D'Elboux stresses that the technology still plays a valid role in day-to-day communication, provided it serves as operational support rather than a substitute for authorship.
D'Elboux notes that he uses AI for tasks such as proofreading and automated market news curation using AI agents. Automation is also justified when repurposing rich, human-created content into bite-sized formats. "You have an amazing e-book and want to turn it into multiple posts using an AI tool? That's great—it's high-quality content that delivers real value by repackaging it into small snackable pieces," he explains.
The practical distinction lies in the author's signature and the reader's expectations: using automation to process legitimate source material is very different from delegating your voice to a language model, a practice D'Elboux considers counterproductive for anyone seeking professional relevance.