Why Chomi
The fix is not a smarter prompt, it is what only you know
The fix is not a smarter prompt. It is what actually makes AI content human: real input from the person who does the work.
An afternoon of editing
- Em dashes taken out
- Phrasing varied, tone warmed
- Headings tightened, sections filled
The short answer
AI slop is a sameness problem, not an authorship problem. Search engines and AI assistants do not push a page down for being written with AI, they push it down for repeating what is already public. So stopping AI slop comes down to one thing: getting first-hand knowledge into the piece before AI writes a sentence.
What AI slop actually means
Slop is writing that could have been published about any business in your sector without changing a word. It usually reads competently. It just contains nothing you could not already get from the first three results.
The tells are easy to spot once you know them.
The generic phrasing around it tends to confirm the diagnosis. The myth worth killing is the penalty one. Nothing is being punished for being AI-written, and believing otherwise sends people looking for ways to hide the tool instead of fixing the page.
“If the content is not useful, it sounds generic, and yet you still have keywords and stuff in there, it might rank well temporarily, but then it is going to go down in rankings again.”
“Usually what I notice is the em dash. If the content uses the em dash, then it means it is probably AI slop.”
The options on the table, and where each one stops
Most people try three or four things before they try anything structural. Each of them improves something real, so it is worth being fair about what.
Better prompts improve shape, tone, reading level and format. They do not improve substance, because a prompt can only work with what the model already holds. Rewriting the draft by hand is the one people underestimate. It works, and it costs more than they expect: you spend an afternoon removing tells and still have not added a single thing the model did not know.
The realistic range of fixes, and where each one stops helping.
| Approach | What it genuinely fixes | What it leaves unsolved |
|---|---|---|
| Prompt tweaking | Tone, structure, format, reading level | Substance. The model can only recombine what is already public |
| Templates and outlines | Consistency across a team and fewer missing sections | Every competitor already has those same sections |
| Rewriting drafts by hand | Sentence-level tells, including the em dashes | Takes longer than starting clean, and adds no new information |
| Human-only writing | Real first-hand detail, if the writer has it | Cost and speed, and the writer still has to get detail out of a busy expert |
| Interview-led writing | Puts the expert's examples and opinions in before drafting starts | Needs about fifteen minutes of the expert's time. No time, no benefit |
The expertise goes in before the writing starts. This is how.
See how it worksWhere originality actually comes from
Originality has to come from information that was never written down anywhere. If a model is producing the sentences, the only material it cannot source elsewhere is what the practitioner knows and has not published.
Process descriptions and background that any competitor could also write are the first things to cut. Originality in this sense is not the absence of plagiarism. It is whether the page covers the reader's actual problem from experience.
One more thing agencies get wrong here. Fixing a single page rarely moves it, because it is about the usefulness of your entire website rather than of one page. Weak supporting pages drag a strong one down with them.
“Details that actually matter are the expert's opinions, what they have experienced in a specific situation. It is the pain points.”
Five ways people make it worse
Each of these costs an afternoon and leaves the underlying problem exactly where it was. They are listed so the time is not spent on them twice.
Each one costs time and leaves the problem where it was
- Trying to disguise that AI was involved. Hiding the tool adds no information, and information is the thing that was missing.
- Editing only at sentence level. Swapping adjectives and stripping em dashes makes a page read better while it still says nothing new.
- Blaming keyword targeting for a drop. These days it is not really about keywords. The most important thing is the usefulness of your content.
- Optimising one page while the pages around it stay generic.
- Publishing without a human reading it first, which is how factual errors and empty sections go live under your client's name.
What it takes to make AI content human
The expertise has to go in before the writing starts. Editing is a clean-up step and it cannot add what was never there, which is why rewriting is slower than it looks.
That means the person who does the work has to talk. Not the account manager, not the website, and not a questionnaire, because questionnaires come back empty or come back with the answer the client gives everyone.
“Typically the platform would ask follow-up questions if it does not understand what you are saying or feels like it does not have enough context. It is going to ask you more and more questions to get a better understanding of what you are explaining.”
It is a voice interview for a practical reason.
“You are never too busy to use your voice. You could be doing anything, like running an errand or washing dishes, and just open up the tool and start answering questions.”
15 minutes
How long the voice interview takes. Less time than cleaning the robotic tells out of one AI draft.
Questions people ask
No. A detector guesses at how the text was produced and a plagiarism checker tells you whether it was copied. Neither asks whether the page says anything that was not already published, which is the problem you actually have.
A newer model writes cleaner sentences and follows instructions better. It still only knows what is public, so the output stays generic. The variable that changes the result is what you feed in, not which model writes it up.
No, and we would rather say so than sell you volume. Review catches factual errors, but more often it catches sections that sound fine and contain nothing. If nobody is reading before publishing, Chomi is not the right tool for you.
Then this does not work, and that is worth knowing before you subscribe. With no interview, the output is no better than any other AI tool. The honest counter is how little is being asked: fifteen minutes of talking, which can happen while you do something else.
Not at all. AI is good at drafting, structuring and formatting. What it cannot supply is the trade-off you made on a job last year. Separate the two and the writing stays automated while the substance comes from you.
Stop writing content that sounds like everyone else's
Chomi launched in 2026 and has very little customer history to show you yet, so judge the method instead. This page was built the way the product works: a brief, a fifteen minute voice interview, then the finished piece.
Single-business plans start at $19 a month. Agency plans start at $55 and add client switching and a knowledge base per client. Agency Scale also puts your branding on everything the client sees.
Keep reading
AI search visibility (GEO)
What actually gets a page quoted by an assistant, and what only measures the gap.
Read itOrganic search visibility
Why flat traffic is usually a sameness problem, and why production beats measurement on a small budget.
Read itFirst-hand expertise and E-E-A-T
Why the missing ingredient is information rather than instructions.
Read it