I’m thrilled to sit down with Milena Traikovich, a powerhouse in the world of digital marketing and demand generation. With her deep expertise in analytics, performance optimization, and lead generation, Milena has helped countless businesses craft campaigns that attract high-quality leads. Today, we’re diving into a topic that’s on everyone’s mind: the profound impact of artificial intelligence on the internet and search engine optimization. From the eerie concept of a ‘dead internet’ to the challenges of AI-generated content and the evolving role of search engines, Milena shares her candid concerns and insights on navigating this rapidly changing landscape.
How do you interpret the ‘Dead Internet Theory,’ and what makes it a looming concern for the future of online spaces?
To me, the ‘Dead Internet Theory’ paints a pretty unsettling picture where the internet becomes a ghost town of sorts, dominated by bots interacting with other bots, while genuine human content and conversations get buried. It’s a concern because as AI becomes more sophisticated, there’s a real risk that automated systems could outpace and overshadow human contributions. Imagine a web where most traffic, comments, and even content creation is driven by algorithms—real human voices could struggle to be heard. I don’t think we’re fully there yet, but the trajectory is worrying, especially as companies lean on AI for efficiency in content and engagement, potentially prioritizing quantity over authenticity.
What impact do you think bot-to-bot interactions could have on the visibility of authentic human content online?
Bot-to-bot interactions could seriously dilute the visibility of human content. If algorithms are engaging with other algorithms at a massive scale—think automated comments, likes, or shares—they create a feedback loop that artificially inflates certain content. Search engines and platforms might then prioritize this inflated content over something a real person poured their heart into, simply because the metrics look better. It’s a vicious cycle that could push human creators to the margins, making it harder for their work to surface unless they play the same automation game, which not everyone can or wants to do.
When it comes to the flood of AI-generated content online, what’s your biggest worry?
My biggest worry is the sheer volume of AI-generated content drowning out quality and originality. AI can churn out articles, videos, and posts at an unprecedented rate, often at a fraction of the cost of human labor. While some of it might be decent, a lot of it risks being repetitive or shallow, clogging up the internet with noise. This flood could make it incredibly tough for users to find valuable, thoughtful content, and it undermines the effort of those who are still creating from scratch. It’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack that’s growing bigger by the second.
How do you see this surge of AI content affecting smaller creators who rely on traditional, human-driven methods?
Smaller creators are really at a disadvantage here. They often don’t have the resources to compete with the scale and speed of AI-generated content. If you’re a solo blogger or a small business crafting original pieces, you’re up against entities that can publish hundreds of AI-written articles a day. This can tank their visibility on search engines and social platforms, where algorithms often favor volume and engagement over depth. It’s disheartening because these creators bring unique perspectives that AI can’t replicate, but they might get lost in the shuffle unless platforms find better ways to highlight authenticity.
Google’s guidelines now emphasize human review of AI-generated content. How do you make sense of this stance given the challenges in detecting AI involvement?
Google’s push for human review of AI content seems like a well-intentioned effort to maintain quality, but it’s a bit of a head-scratcher in practice. They’re basically saying, ‘Use AI if you must, but make sure a human checks it.’ The problem is, there’s no reliable way to enforce this or even detect AI involvement with 100% accuracy. It feels like a guideline that’s more about setting a tone than creating a hard rule. I think they’re trying to balance innovation with integrity, but it’s a murky area, and it puts a burden on content creators to prove their process while Google itself experiments with AI in features like AI Overviews.
Do you believe Google’s own use of AI in tools like AI Overviews might create an unfair advantage over SEOs and content creators?
Absolutely, there’s a potential for an uneven playing field. When Google uses AI to summarize content at the top of search results with AI Overviews, they’re essentially curating information in a way that might reduce clicks to the original sources. As SEOs and creators, we’re playing by rules that emphasize original, human-reviewed content, but Google’s own AI can bypass some of that scrutiny and directly compete for user attention. It’s frustrating because it can shift traffic patterns, making organic search less predictable and pushing some to pivot to paid strategies just to stay visible.
You’ve expressed concerns about AI reducing diversity in online content. Can you elaborate on why this is such a critical issue?
Diversity in content is the lifeblood of the internet—it’s what keeps ideas fresh and perspectives varied. My concern is that AI, by design, often leans toward patterns and repetition based on existing data. If everyone uses the same AI tools to create content, we risk ending up with a homogenized web where everything starts to look and sound the same. There’s less incentive to take creative risks or explore niche topics because AI might prioritize what’s already popular or safe. Over time, this could stifle innovation and leave us with a bland, predictable digital landscape that doesn’t reflect the full spectrum of human thought.
How might AI personalization in search engines shape the way people perceive the world around them?
AI personalization in search engines can create echo chambers that are tougher to escape than ever before. When algorithms tailor results to a user’s past behavior or preferences, they’re often only seeing content that reinforces what they already believe or like. While this might feel comfortable, it narrows their worldview, limiting exposure to new ideas or opposing viewpoints. It’s a subtle but powerful shift that can deepen societal divides, as people become less aware of alternative perspectives. Features like setting ‘Preferred Sources’ in search experiments only amplify this, making the internet less of a marketplace of ideas and more of a curated bubble.
What risks do you see in users being exposed only to content that aligns with their existing biases?
The biggest risk is a loss of critical thinking and empathy. If users are constantly fed content that matches their biases, they’re less likely to question their assumptions or understand where others are coming from. This can fuel polarization, whether it’s in politics, culture, or even consumer behavior. On a practical level, it also means missing out on serendipity—those unexpected discoveries that broaden horizons. For businesses and creators, it’s a challenge too, because breaking through to new audiences becomes harder when algorithms keep users locked in their comfort zones.
What’s your forecast for the future of AI in SEO and digital marketing over the next few years?
I think AI will continue to be both a tool and a challenge in SEO and digital marketing over the next few years. On one hand, it’s going to supercharge efficiency—think smarter content ideation, better audience targeting, and more precise analytics. On the other, it’ll intensify competition as everyone leverages these tools, and we’ll see ongoing tension with search engines over quality and authenticity. I expect Google and other platforms to tighten their algorithms to reward genuine human engagement, possibly prioritizing interactive or community-driven content like forums. My hope is that we’ll find a balance where AI enhances rather than replaces the human touch, but it’s going to require vigilance from marketers to adapt without losing sight of what makes content truly connect with people.
