--- title: "The machine writes half. Readers are mostly shown the other half." url: https://deadwritingtheory.com/cases/half-the-articles-but-who-reads-them/ summary: "A vendor study: 86% of articles ranking in Google and 82% cited by ChatGPT and Perplexity were human-written. Published is not the same as read. Detector-based." published: 2026-10-09 updated: 2026-10-09 author: "Jack Stovell" publisher: "Adapt Progress Evolve Limited" language: en-GB --- # The machine writes half. Readers are mostly shown the other half. A vendor study: 86% of articles ranking in Google and 82% cited by ChatGPT and Perplexity were human-written. Published is not the same as read. Detector-based. **Case No. DWT-011: Half the articles, but who reads them?.** Verdict for the defence. Filed 9 October 2026. - **The question:** How much of what Google ranks, and what ChatGPT and Perplexity cite, is AI-generated? - **The sample:** 31,493 keywords across 10 categories; the first two Google results pages for each in June 2025, plus ChatGPT and Perplexity citations for 100 keywords per category; English articles and listicles classified in 500-word chunks with Surfer's AI detector - **The study:** Jose Luis Paredes, Gregory Druck, Ethan Smith (Graphite (an SEO and growth agency)), "How Does AI-Generated Content Perform in Search and Answer Engines?", Graphite research (Five Percent), 2025. https://graphite.io/five-percent/ai-content-in-search-and-llms - **Whose study:** Third-party study (vendor study). Not our study. Entered into evidence from Jose Luis Paredes, Gregory Druck, Ethan Smith, Graphite (an SEO and growth agency). - **Peer review:** Not peer reviewed: a vendor study ## Findings of fact 1. 86% of articles ranking in Google Search were written by humans; 14% were generated with AI. 2. 82% of articles cited by ChatGPT, and 82% cited by Perplexity, were written by humans; 18% were AI-generated. 3. Only 7% of the articles ranking number one in Google were AI-generated, and human-written pages ranked higher than AI pages for the same keywords. 4. By topic, "AI: high confidence" articles were 4.5% in Food and 4.7% in News, against 14.1% in Productivity and 13.3% in Crypto. ## Caveats for the jury - A vendor study: Graphite sells SEO and AEO (answer engine optimisation) services, so incentives are in the room. - It relies on one commercial AI detector (Surfer's), whose false-positive rate Graphite measured at 4.2%. - It does not measure AI drafts heavily edited by people, which the authors think may perform well. - Ranking depends on many hidden variables, so the gap between human and AI pages is not proof of cause. ## The court reporter's account Case DWT-006 found that about half of new articles are primarily AI-generated. That came from a Graphite study. This is the other Graphite study, and it asks the obvious follow-up: fine, but does anyone see that stuff? A flag before I go on. The authors are Paredes, Druck and Smith, of Graphite, an SEO and growth agency. The piece is "How Does AI-Generated Content Perform in Search and Answer Engines?", on the Graphite research page, 14 October 2025. It's a vendor study, not peer reviewed. The court should weigh it accordingly. The method: 31,493 keywords across 10 categories. For each keyword, the first two Google results pages in June 2025. Citations from ChatGPT and Perplexity for 100 keywords per category, turned into questions. English articles and listicles were classified in 500-word chunks with Surfer's AI detector, whose false-positive rate Graphite measured at 4.2%. The findings run the other way from what the doom-mongers expect. 86% of articles ranking in Google Search were written by humans, and 14% were generated with AI. For answer engines it was the same split twice: 82% of articles cited by ChatGPT and 82% cited by Perplexity were human-written, 18% AI. Only 7% of number-one Google results were AI-generated, and human pages ranked higher than AI pages for the same keyword. Topic matters, though. AI share varies: Food sat at 4.5% and News at 4.7% "high confidence AI", while Productivity reached 14.1% and Crypto 13.3%. So the machine's footprint is uneven. The point for the court: the machine may write half of what is published, but what readers are actually shown is mostly human. Publication and visibility are different things. This study is about the second one, and it measures prevalence in what gets surfaced, not whether the writing converged. Caveats, naturally. It's a vendor study, and detector-based, so every number inherits the detector's flaws (see Case DWT-009, which I'd reread). It doesn't measure AI drafts heavily edited by humans, which the authors think may perform well. And ranking depends on many hidden variables, so no one should read causes into a snapshot. Even so, the defence gets something real here. If the flood is mostly unread, the flood matters less than the headline suggests. Verdict: for the defence. ## The exhibits entered in this case ### For the prosecution - No exhibit entered for the prosecution in this case. ### For the defence - **Exhibit D-14**: What Google ranks is still mostly human-written. **86%** of articles ranking in Google Search written by humans, June 2025. 31,493 keywords across 10 categories. Only 7% of number-one results were AI-generated. Vendor study, detector-based. - **Exhibit D-15**: Answer engines mostly cite human writing. **82%** of articles cited by ChatGPT, and by Perplexity, written by humans. 18% AI-generated. Surfer's detector, with a false-positive rate Graphite measured at 4.2%. ## The finding A vendor study: 86% of articles ranking in Google and 82% cited by ChatGPT and Perplexity were human-written. Published is not the same as read. Detector-based. ## Related - [Half the articles. Then the rise stopped.](https://deadwritingtheory.com/cases/half-the-articles-and-a-plateau/) - [Three quarters of new pages had some AI in them. 2.5% were all AI.](https://deadwritingtheory.com/cases/three-quarters-touched/) - [The detectors flagged human writers as machines.](https://deadwritingtheory.com/cases/the-detector-that-convicts-the-innocent/) ## Sources - [Paredes et al., "How Does AI-Generated Content Perform in Search and Answer Engines?", Graphite research (Five Percent), 2025 (the original study)](https://graphite.io/five-percent/ai-content-in-search-and-llms) ## Questions people ask ### How much of Google's results is AI-generated? About 14% of articles ranking in Google Search in June 2025, according to Graphite (Paredes, Druck and Smith, October 2025), a vendor study based on an AI detector. 86% were written by humans. ### Do ChatGPT and Perplexity cite AI-written pages? Less often than human ones: 82% of the articles each cited were human-written and 18% AI-generated, in the same study. ### How does this fit with "half of new articles are AI"? That figure (case DWT-006) is about what gets published. This one is about what gets shown to readers. Both come from Graphite and both rely on detectors. ### Why is it a point for the defence? Because the theory is about the writing people meet on the web, and on this evidence most of what search and answer engines surface is still human-written. It is a vendor study, so a point, not a knockout.