LinkedIn AI Content Study: 81% of Long-Form Posts Are Likely AI
Source: Originality.ai · 2026-07-30
81.2% of 5,000 July posts were Likely AI as LinkedIn begins rolling out a native “Seems Like AI Slop” feedback option.
This update continues our study of AI-written content on LinkedIn. We use the same nine topics, 100-word minimum and classification method to track how AI content changes over time.
In July 2026, we analyzed 5,000 public LinkedIn posts across nine topics. More than four in five (81.2%) were classified as Likely AI.
LinkedIn is also rolling out a native “Seems like AI slop” feedback option, giving members a direct way to flag posts and ads that appear AI-generated.
81.2% of July posts were Likely AI. The expanded dataset included 5,000 public posts of at least 100 words.
LinkedIn has confirmed the “Seems like AI slop” rollout. The company says “AI Slop is a top priority” and is ramping up the ability for members to flag posts and comments.
This is the same continuing study: nine topics, posts of at least 100 words, and Originality.ai’s 15% AI Allowance.
For July, we expanded the dataset to 5,000 posts. We collected 10 pages of results from 90 topic-and-date searches, then removed posts with the wrong date, under 100 words, or duplicates. We selected the final 5,000 before checking any AI scores.
This covers public LinkedIn posts found through our searches, not every LinkedIn post or anyone’s personal feed.
Our repeatable search method is built to track change over time. Feed-based studies measure what participating users see and can give more weight to popular posts. Our sample is narrower, but easier to compare consistently from month to month.
The earlier study ended with over half of long-form posts classified as Likely AI. In the much larger July analysis, 4,061 of 5,000 posts were Likely AI: 81.2%.
Likely AI content has moved from roughly half of sampled long-form posts in late 2024 to well over three-quarters today.
LinkedIn is rolling out a native “Seems like AI slop” option for posts and ads. It appears inside LinkedIn’s three-dot menu, beside “Not interested” and “Report post” or “Report ad.”
Linkedin Confirm the Rollout: Hari Srinivasan, LinkedIn’s Chief Product Officer, says AI slop is “a top priority” and that LinkedIn is “ramping the ability for members to tell us” when a post or comment seems like AI slop. Read LinkedIn’s update.
The option is built into LinkedIn. It appears inside LinkedIn’s own three-dot menu.
LinkedIn has confirmed the rollout, although the company has not said whether the option is available globally.
404 Media independently reproduced it. Selecting the option hid the post for its reporter and said the feedback would help improve the feed.
It fits LinkedIn’s feed policy. LinkedIn says it is reducing distribution of generic, repetitive content that appears AI-generated.
Sources and examples: 404 Media, LinkedIn’s feed policy, the Reddit rollout discussion, and posts from Navneet Kaur, Nicole Mezzasalma, Nick Bennett, Emmet Ó Briain and Matt Jones.
More than four in five LinkedIn posts in our larger July sample were Likely AI, continuing the upward trend.
LinkedIn’s new “Seems like AI slop” option shows that the platform is beginning to respond directly.
AI disclosure - The analysis was managed and reviewed by humans and significant AI editing on the post was used to help summarize the findings.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
How does AI-generated content create social proof without authentic interaction?- What percentage of workplace communication now contains AI-generated content?
- How often does LinkedIn wrongly flag legitimate posts as AI-generated?
- How does LinkedIn's verification system affect what content appears in feeds?
- How does LinkedIn's approach differ from other AI content moderation systems?
- How much of LinkedIn's feed is genuinely AI-generated versus human-written content?
- What triggers LinkedIn's detection of inauthentic content from heavy AI use?
- How does LinkedIn's platform response address detected AI-generated content?
- How does LinkedIn's comment-versus-post AI split compare to Reddit's?
- Why do AI posts collect likes without generating replies on social media?
- Do members who flag AI posts actually see fewer AI-generated posts afterward?
- Does flagging AI content change engagement and distribution like downvoting does?
- How accurate is the detector labeling these posts?
- How much of new web content is AI-generated by mid-2025?
- Why are Technology and Software Development categories highest on Medium?
- What happens to reach when a post gets flagged incorrectly?
- How do job posting trends in AI demand differ from what recruiters actually hire for?
- Do recruiters understand what their hiring algorithms actually prioritize?
- Do candidates prefer being screened by AI or by humans?
- What completion rates do AI hiring agents achieve on real recruitment tasks?
- How do recruiters and candidates actually want AI involved in hiring?
- Do job candidates prefer or want to be screened by AI systems?
- What hiring outcome data would prove AI screening improves hire quality?