If your LinkedIn feed has started to feel like an endless stream of formulaic corporate chatter, you are not imagining things. A significant share of the posts and comments on the platform are now generated by artificial intelligence. In response, LinkedIn is introducing a dedicated reporting feature that asks users to flag content that reads like AI slop.

Key facts

• LinkedIn is adding a “Seems like AI slop” button to the three-dot menu on posts and comments.
• Users whose content is flagged will receive a private notification in their analytics dashboard.
• LinkedIn says it has already blocked billions of AI-generated posts and comments in recent months.
• Substack CEO Chris Best announced that Substack will integrate AI detection tool Pangram to fight AI slop.
• Pangram data shows LinkedIn accounts for 62% of all AI content flagged on major platforms, and as much as 40% of long-form text on LinkedIn is AI-generated.

A button for the AI era

The new tool, announced by LinkedIn’s chief product officer Hari Srinivasan, gives users a straightforward way to identify what they believe is AI-generated or low-quality content. The option, labeled “Seems like AI slop,” is accessible through the three-dot menu in the upper-right corner of every post and comment. If enough people flag a piece of content, LinkedIn says it will use that feedback to improve its moderation systems and tune the algorithms that decide what appears in users’ feeds.

Srinivasan described the initiative in a post on the platform, saying the company wants to give members a way to tell LinkedIn directly when something feels inauthentic. “We are ramping the ability for members to tell us if they believe a post or comment seems like AI slop,” he wrote. “Slop is hard to define and the definition changes; this lets us tune our models and make better feeds.”

When a post is flagged, the person who shared it will be privately notified through their analytics dashboard. That means users will know when their content is seen as inauthentic, even if the platform chooses not to remove it.

What is AI slop?

The term “slop” has become a catch-all for low-quality, mass-produced content created with generative AI tools. It often includes bland motivational posts, generic business advice, and repetitive comment-section flattery. On LinkedIn, where professional branding is a core part of the platform’s appeal, AI slop has become especially common. Users have long joked that the site rewards a certain kind of corporate voice, and generative AI has made it easier than ever to produce that voice at scale.

The problem is not limited to LinkedIn. Across social media, AI-generated text and images have inundated feeds, comment sections, and even news articles. Platforms have struggled to keep up, and moderators are often left to judge whether something is genuinely AI-generated or just poorly written. The new LinkedIn button is one attempt to outsource that judgment to users.

Billions of blocked posts

Srinivasan said LinkedIn has already blocked billions of AI-generated posts and comments in recent months. That number underscores the sheer scale of the problem. It also suggests that automated detection systems are already doing a significant amount of work behind the scenes. The new user-facing flagging option is meant to complement those systems, giving LinkedIn access to human judgment that can help train its models.

Substack and the Pangram integration

LinkedIn is not alone in trying to address the slop problem. Substack, a newsletter platform that has positioned itself as a haven for independent writers, has also moved to push back against AI content. Earlier this month, Substack CEO Chris Best announced that the platform would integrate the AI detection tool Pangram into its app. Best was blunt about the motivation, saying Substack does not want to become LinkedIn.

“Platforms that reward fakeness will drive a race to the bottom,” Best said in a series of posts on X. “Pangram’s data shows that as much as 40% of long-form text on LinkedIn is generated.” The implication was clear: Substack wants to avoid the same fate by giving readers and writers better visibility into AI-generated material.

Pangram’s data paints a stark picture. According to the company, LinkedIn posts made up about a third of all scanned items but accounted for nearly two-thirds, or 62%, of all AI content flagged. That suggests LinkedIn is a particularly dense concentration of AI-generated long-form content among major social platforms. Other networks, including Facebook, X, and even Substack, also host AI slop, but LinkedIn appears to be the most affected.

The limits of AI detection

Srinivasan’s announcement did not attack Substack as directly as Best attacked LinkedIn, but it did include a pointed comment about detection tools. “We want members to get feedback from real humans on what sounds authentic — not just have an AI detector review it and get it wrong,” he wrote.

That jab reflects a growing concern about the reliability of AI detection software. Many commercial tools claim to identify AI-generated text with high accuracy, but independent testing has shown mixed results. These tools often rely on statistical patterns that can be fooled by well-written human text or subtle edits to AI output. They also tend to produce false positives, occasionally labeling human-written content as AI-generated.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that many AI detection tools are themselves powered by AI. That creates a circular problem: an AI model is being used to judge whether another AI model produced a piece of text. The reasoning behind those judgments is often hidden from the user, making it difficult to know when to trust the verdict. A student who writes a careful, grammatically correct essay might be accused of cheating, while a writer who uses AI to brainstorm but writes the final draft by hand might escape detection entirely.

Human detection is not much better. Researchers have repeatedly found that people are surprisingly bad at identifying AI-generated writing. In many studies, participants perform only slightly better than chance, essentially a coin toss. The telltale signs they rely on — clear grammar, smooth transitions, and a certain polished tone — are also qualities that human editors have long encouraged. Using em dashes, colons, and other punctuation tools is not necessarily evidence of AI, even if internet sleuths often treat it that way.

The problem is especially acute for non-native English speakers. Advice about spotting AI slop often focuses on “overly perfect” language, which punishes writers who have worked hard to master English. A person whose second language is English might be more likely to use formal phrasing, standard structures, and correct grammar — all of which can be mistaken for AI output. This has led to concerns that anti-AI policies and tools might inadvertently discriminate against those populations.

LinkedIn’s next steps

Beyond the new flagging button, LinkedIn says it is ramping up a series of new and improved classifiers that can identify whether a post is AI slop or generally low-quality content. These classifiers are expected to work alongside user reports to reduce the amount of noise in the feed.

The company is also retiring its AI-driven “enhance your post” feature. That feature, which was introduced to help users polish their writing, often generated exactly the kind of bland, corporate-sounding text that many LinkedIn users say they dislike. According to Srinivasan, the replacement will be an AI tool that proofreads text while keeping the user’s voice intact. That distinction matters: instead of rewriting everything in a generic professional tone, the tool will focus on grammar, clarity, and flow without stripping away personality.

Why it matters

The fight against AI slop is not just about aesthetics. It has real consequences for how people experience social media, how trust is built and broken, and how information spreads. When feeds are filled with machine-generated content, users lose confidence in what they see. They may stop engaging, or worse, they may be tricked into thinking that the slop is genuine human opinion.

For LinkedIn, the stakes are especially high. The platform’s value lies in its network of professionals who share insights, job opportunities, and industry knowledge. If that network becomes saturated with AI-generated content, the platform risks becoming a ghost town of bots talking to bots. The new button is an attempt to preserve the human element that makes LinkedIn useful in the first place.

The move also highlights a broader shift in the way platforms are approaching AI moderation. Rather than relying entirely on automated systems, many companies are turning to their users for help. Crowdsourced flagging has its own problems, including coordinated campaigns and false reports, but it can provide a valuable signal when combined with machine learning.

As generative AI continues to improve, the line between human and machine writing will only get blurrier. Tools like ChatGPT can now produce text that is indistinguishable from human writing in many contexts, especially when a human edits the output. That means any flagging system is unlikely to be perfect. But LinkedIn’s decision to give users a voice in the process is a step toward making the problem more visible.

The company has not said how many reports will be required before a post is acted upon, and it remains unclear whether repeat offenders will face penalties. For now, the feature is being framed as a way to gather feedback and tune algorithms. Users who are tired of scrolling past the same recycled phrases can at least feel like they are doing something about it.

In the end, the success of the “Seems like AI slop” button will depend on how LinkedIn uses the data it collects. If the platform can translate user reports into meaningful changes to its feed ranking and moderation systems, the feature could help reduce the spread of low-quality content. If not, it will simply become another button that users click and forget.

For now, LinkedIn users have a new tool at their disposal. The three-dot menu is waiting, and the button is clearly labeled. Go ahead and click it. The slop is not going to delete itself.

Source:Gizmodo News