Milena Traikovich is a powerhouse in the demand generation space, known for turning dry analytics into high-performing lead machines that actually move the needle for businesses. With LinkedIn recently rolling out its aggressive “AI slop” reporting tool, the stakes for professional content have never been higher. Milena has spent years deconstructing what makes people stop scrolling, and today, she is here to navigate the shifting sands of professional networking. We are diving deep into the death of lazy automation and how creators can reclaim their authentic voice in a feed that is increasingly saturated by robotic echoes and generic summaries.
In this discussion, we explore the mechanics of LinkedIn’s new reporting features and the specific reach penalties that follow a “slop” flag. Milena breaks down the linguistic “tells” that trigger both human irritation and algorithmic demotion, while offering a framework for using artificial intelligence as a rigorous proofreader rather than a ghostwriter. We also touch upon the paradoxical nature of Microsoft’s dual role as both an AI investor and a platform policeman, and why the most “ugly” and unpolished sentences in your notes app might actually be your greatest competitive advantage in 2026.
LinkedIn has recently introduced a feature that allows users to report content specifically as “AI slop.” From your perspective as a demand gen expert, how does this change the fundamental strategy for anyone trying to build an audience or generate leads on the platform?
The introduction of that “AI slop” button, which Hari Srinivasan has noted as a top priority for the LinkedIn ecosystem, marks the end of the “lazy era” of content creation. When a reader clicks those three dots and flags your work, it isn’t just a quiet complaint; it triggers a tangible reach penalty that mirrors the “not interested” signal, effectively burying your post in the shadows. To stay relevant, you have to realize that your writing has exactly one job: to make the right person feel like they are reading something only you could have written. I’ve grown my own following to 57,000 by looking at the data, and the data now says that if you don’t have a unique nuance—something you’ve been thinking but haven’t said out loud—the algorithm will eventually catch up to you. You need to be smarter than the tool, which means moving away from the “paste and publish” mentality and focusing on the raw, unfiltered material that AI simply cannot replicate.
The statistics surrounding AI saturation on LinkedIn are quite staggering, with some reports suggesting that nearly half of long-form content is machine-generated. How can a creator truly stand out when the feed feels this crowded?
The numbers from Pangram Labs are a wake-up call for everyone; they scanned over a million social posts and found that LinkedIn is the most AI-saturated platform out there, with more than 40% of long-form posts being fully AI-generated. Even more concerning is that LinkedIn posts made up a third of the items scanned and nearly two-thirds of everything flagged as “fake” writing. To stand out in this sea of sameness, you have to embrace the “ugly” sentences—the ones you scribble in the gym or the voice notes you record on the drive home from a client meeting. Real engagement happens when you share the things you actually changed your mind about or a specific number you are proud of, because those sensory and concrete details act as a lifeboat for readers who are exhausted by generic templates. If you can find five posts that piqued your interest last week, you’ll notice that at least three of them contained a level of nuance that an LLM can’t grasp because it doesn’t know your personal history or your specific professional scars.
You mentioned that there are specific linguistic “tells” that give away AI-generated content. Could you elaborate on what those are and how users can train themselves to avoid these common pitfalls?
AI has a very specific “breath” to its writing that readers have been trained to recognize in seconds, often before they even get to your main point. There are giveaway words that act like sirens—terms like “delve,” “landscape,” “journey,” and “quietly” are overused to the point of being invisible or annoying. Then there are the structural giveaways, like the oddly placed em dash in the middle of a line or the “summary sentence” at the end that neatly wraps up a point you’ve already made. I always tell people to read their draft as if they were sitting across the table from a client; if you wouldn’t say a line out loud in a real conversation, delete it immediately. Jan Tegze, a director of talent acquisition, put it perfectly when he said that “careful writing reads as fake writing,” so your goal should be to keep the rough edges that prove a human was behind the keyboard.
LinkedIn is shifting its internal tools from “enhancing” posts to merely “proofreading” them. How should professionals adjust their workflow to use AI as a collaborator without losing their unique voice?
The shift away from the “enhance your post” tool is a clear signal from Microsoft and LinkedIn that they want you to own your voice again. Srinivasan mentioned that the new tool is designed to check for spelling and punctuation without changing your tone, which is exactly how you should be using these models. Your workflow should start in a notes app, far away from any AI tool, where you dump your raw material, your dream customer’s questions, and your unconventional beliefs. When you do use an LLM, your prompt needs to be a strict set of rules: “Correct my errors, but keep my words exactly as they are.” After the tool gives you an output, you must read it against your original draft and manually put back anything the AI “smoothed out,” because that smoothness is exactly what the “slop” button was designed to punish.
We often focus on the main feed, but you’ve noted that the comment section is actually a bigger problem when it comes to automated “slop.” Why is the comment box so critical right now?
The comment section is where the real trust is built with strangers, but it’s also where LinkedIn is fighting its hardest battle, blocking hundreds of thousands of automated comment attempts every single day. Because people feel pressured to “play the game” but lack the time, they resort to AI comments that add zero value, which is a massive mistake because the “slop” button works on comments too. Instead of a generic “Great post!” you need to quote a specific line you disagreed with or add a concrete example from your own business experience. I challenge people to leave five comments today that no AI could have written, perhaps highlighting a similarity in a high-energy way or sharing a framework you’ve actually tried. This is how you attract clients and collaborators in their thousands—by showing up as a person, not a bot that simply mimics engagement.
There is a certain irony in the fact that Microsoft, a major investor in OpenAI, is now the one policing AI content. How do you feel about the potential for false accusations or the platform’s “dual role” in this scenario?
It is undeniably problematic and creates a strange tension where the same company selling you the features is now penalizing you for using them. Microsoft has a $135 billion investment in OpenAI, holding about 27 percent of the company, so they are essentially policing their own product’s output. Allison Rossi, a fractional CMO, pointed out that this gives people a tool to falsely accuse or report posts they simply didn’t like, which is a valid concern for any creator. However, you shouldn’t spend your time worrying about being liked by everyone; the goal is to attract the right people and let the wrong ones leave. While LinkedIn works out its internal contradictions, your best defense is competence—if you write so well that you don’t even need AI, you never have to look over your shoulder for the “slop” button.
For someone who has become reliant on AI to keep up with the volume of posting, what is the best way to “detox” and return to a more human-centric content strategy?
The best way to detox is to realize that AI is excellent for volume and training, but it shouldn’t be the final word. Use AI to publish enough that the data tells you which “hooks” grab attention and which beliefs bring your dream clients out of hiding, then use those insights to write your next ten posts manually. You can take your best-performing posts of the year, deconstruct the structure they used, and then apply that same framework to new ideas without any digital help. Once you’ve done enough repetitions, your competence becomes unconscious, and you’ll find that you can write a winning post the first time around. You already have the material in your client calls and the frameworks you use every day, so just put one of those into a post and let the human connection do the heavy lifting.
What is your forecast for the future of professional networking as these AI detection and reporting tools become more sophisticated?
My forecast is that we are entering an era where “human-verified” content will become the ultimate premium asset. As the feed continues to be rebuilt around content that people actually stop for, the reach of generic, AI-assisted fluff will plummet, while the influence of individual experts with “ugly,” authentic stories will skyrocket. We will see a divide where 90% of the platform is noise, and the top 10% of creators—those who write like humans and share real numbers and frameworks—will capture 90% of the lead generation opportunities. Eventually, the “slop” button will force a return to quality over quantity, and the people who have the courage to be themselves, flaws and all, are the ones who will win the game. If you want to survive the crackdown, start treating your LinkedIn profile like a conversation, not a broadcast, and you’ll find your dream clients are much more likely to join the room.
