Everyone Is using GenAI – how many are actually being Transparent about it?

Generative AI is now part of everyday work for a lot of people in digital roles. Developers use it for coding support, refactoring, and problem solving. Marketers and SEOs use it for ideation, drafting, restructuring, and improving clarity. Product teams use it to explore ideas and reduce friction in early thinking.

What still feels slightly odd is how rarely people are open about it. AI is widely used, but quietly. Especially when it comes to content. Many sites are built and maintained with the help of generative AI, yet very few explain that anywhere in plain terms.

That gap between reality and disclosure is what made me pause. Recently, I updated my privacy policy page to include a short section explaining how I use AI on my website. It was not a statement or a stance. It was simply an accurate description of how things work these days.

AI is already part of how work gets done

At this point, it would be unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Most developers I know use some form of generative AI. Sometimes heavily, sometimes lightly, but it is there. Writing boilerplate, checking logic, speeding up repetitive tasks, or helping think through an approach before committing to code.

Content workflows have followed the same path. People use AI to explore topics, outline long form pieces, tighten language, or improve flow. That does not automatically mean the content is automated or low effort. In many cases, it means someone is using a tool to support their thinking rather than replace it.

The issue is not whether AI is being used. The issue is that it is often treated as something that should not be mentioned, even though it is becoming a standard part of modern workflows.

Why silence feels increasingly uncomfortable

For a long time, staying quiet felt easier. There was concern about how AI use might be perceived, especially in SEO and content. Some worried about judgement. Others worried about how platforms or search engines might react. In many cases, people simply did not know what they were expected to disclose, if anything at all.

As AI becomes more visible, that silence starts to feel harder to justify. Users are more aware of how content is produced. Conversations around data handling and processing are becoming more common. Against that backdrop, saying nothing can feel less like caution and more like avoidance.

Transparency does not need to be overcooked or heavy-handed. It just needs to be honest and proportionate.

What I actually changed

I did not add go crazy adding banners, pop-ups, or disclaimers across my site. I did not label every article. I added a short section to my privacy policy.

It explains that some content on the site may be created or improved with the support of generative AI tools. It explains what those tools are used for, such as content production, enrichment, and improving narrative flow. It also states that AI is used as an assistant, with human review and editing before anything is published.

It also makes clear that user generated content is not automatically fed into third party AI training systems.

This is not about drawing lines in the sand

There is a tendency to frame AI transparency as an ethical debate, which often turns into people trying to position themselves on the “right” side of it. That was not my aim.

This is about accuracy. If someone reads something on my site, I want them to understand how it is produced in the same way they would understand how cookies, analytics, or forms work. That kind of openness removes assumptions and makes expectations clearer.

It also reflects how I approach technical SEO and consultancy more broadly. I prefer fewer unknowns and fewer hidden moving parts.

Silence creates its own problems

One risk of saying nothing is that people fill in the gaps themselves. As AI use becomes more obvious across the web, users will start asking questions about who is using it, how it is being used, and whether their data is involved.

Sites that have already explained their approach will not have much to clarify. Sites that have avoided the topic may find themselves having to explain decisions later, often under less favourable circumstances.

This matters more for sites that publish user generated content or operate communities, but it applies more broadly too. A small amount of clarity early on reduces confusion later.

Acknowledging AI does not remove responsibility

There is still an assumption in some circles that admitting to AI use weakens credibility. I do not agree with that. Tools have always been part of digital work.

Using a calculator does not remove mathematical ability. Using version control does not remove coding skill. Using AI to help structure ideas or improve clarity does not remove responsibility for the final output.

What matters is who is accountable for what is published and whether human judgement is involved. In most professional workflows, it still is.

Where this seems to be heading

I expect disclosures around AI use to become more common over time, not because everyone is forced to do it overnight, but because expectations will shift. In much the same way that cookie notices and data processing statements became standard, AI will find its place in those conversations.

Updating my privacy policy was a small change, but it aligned with how I work and how I think about trust. Generative AI is already part of modern digital work. Being clear about that feels more sensible than pretending it is not.