@Kevin_Indig "... Is AI content against Google's guidelines? ..."
No ... and never really was.
The problem with "AI Content"
(formerly "machine generated content" and "automated content" etc.),
is that it's often garbage/low-quality,
and trips spam flags.

@Kevin_Indig >>>
Using scripts, be it a :
* basic S&R with an array
* "synonymizer"
* "feed" based injector
* DB of "variant strings" pulled together
* high-end word-stitcher
to produce content will often result in masses of content, targeting the same term(s), with minor changes.
>>>

@Kevin_Indig >>>
The result is a collection of duplicate/highly similar pages, often overly-optimised, with little "naturalness" to the content,
with an excessive focus around a particular word (word-set),
and often with poor "satisfaction" signals (lack of links, BBtoSERP etc.)
>>>

@Kevin_Indig >>>
Doesn't matter if it's a straight S&R in PHP,
or a LLM with a terrabyte wordbank,
or an overworked, underpaid writer without a clue on the topic,
or a content mill churning out dozens of pieces a day
...
if the output is spammy,
G don't want it.