AI Usage Policy

Last updated: May 2026 · Author: Giovanni Picaro, Editor-in-Chief

Casino review content on the open web in 2026 is increasingly produced by language models — rewritten from operator marketing material, dressed up with stock photography, and presented as written by experienced reviewers. We do not do this. This page is the explicit, public commitment to what we use artificial intelligence for, what we never use it for, and how we disclose any AI involvement when it occurs.

The policy applies to everything published on SlotMap: operator reviews, bonus deconstructions, provider profiles, license explainers, the glossary, the FAQ, the static informational pages, and any other editorial output.

1. What AI is never used for

• Generating reviews. No casino review is drafted by a language model and then edited into shape. Every review is the work of a named human reviewer who has personally signed up at the operator, deposited real money, played the games, contacted support, gone through KYC, and initiated a withdrawal. There is no automated alternative to this work.
• Generating verdicts. Our verdicts on operators are formed by humans who have actually tested them. We do not ask language models to “write a review of [operator]” and then dress it up in our voice.
• Generating bonus-term analysis. The translation of bonus T&Cs into plain language is done by humans reading the actual T&Cs. Language models are particularly unreliable at distinguishing legally meaningful bonus clauses from boilerplate, and casino bonus terms are a high-stakes area where confidently wrong AI output can cause real player loss.
• Generating fake authorship. Every byline corresponds to a real person on our Meet the Team page. We do not invent fictional contributors to disguise AI-generated content.
• Generating fake test results. We do not use AI to generate plausible-sounding withdrawal times, KYC turnaround times, support response times, or any other test data. The test data on SlotMap is the test data we measured.
• Generating responsible-gambling content. Player-protection material is particularly sensitive: confidently wrong AI output here can do real harm. Every line of our Responsible Gambling page and related content is written and verified by a human, with reference to authoritative sources.

2. What AI may be used for

Some narrow operational uses are permitted, transparently:

• Translation assistance for non-English regulatory documents. When an Italian ADM bulletin, a French ANJ decision, or a Spanish DGOJ enforcement action is relevant to a review, we may use AI translation as one input alongside human reading. Final word choice and any quoted material are verified by a human translator or by the original-language source.
• Spelling and grammar checking. Standard tools.
• Organizing personal review notes. A reviewer may use AI to help structure their own field notes from the testing cycle into outline form. The outline still has to survive editorial review, and the writing from the outline is still done by the human.
• Search and retrieval. AI-powered tools that help us find regulatory enforcement actions, license-register entries, or our own past coverage are useful and uncontroversial; what they surface is verified by a human before being published.
• Accessibility. We may use AI-generated alt-text drafts as a starting point, with every alt-text reviewed and rewritten by a human before publication.
• Image enhancement. Standard photo-editing tools, including AI-assisted enhancements (sharpening, noise reduction, color correction), may be applied to screenshots from the review process. We do not generate visual content this way and do not alter screenshots in ways that misrepresent what we observed.

3. Disclosure rules

• Routine uses (spell-check, search, photo enhancement, alt-text drafting) require no per-article disclosure. They are covered by this policy page.
• Non-routine uses on a specific article (translation help on a substantial passage, AI-organized note structures) are disclosed in a note at the end of the article.
• Future expansion of permitted uses is reflected in updates to this page, with a changelog at the bottom.

4. Why we draw the line where we draw it

Casino review writing has a specific failure mode that AI text exposes brutally. A language model trained on a thousand existing casino reviews can write a perfectly fluent piece on any operator. But the value of a casino review is not the fluent assembly of marketing-derived language. The value is the reviewer who can say, “I deposited €100 with this operator on 14 March; the bonus T&Cs say wagering is 35x but the eligible-games clause means most of my wagering on slots only counts at 25%; KYC took 9 days and three rejected document submissions; my withdrawal cleared on day 21.” Language models cannot say this, because they did not do it. They can produce text that sounds like someone who did, but the underlying experience — the actual sign-up, the actual deposit, the actual support conversation, the actual KYC, the actual withdrawal — is not there.

This gap matters more in the casino niche than almost any other. The reader is choosing where to risk their money. AI-generated reviews that confidently misrepresent withdrawal speeds, KYC behavior, or bonus terms can cause real financial loss to readers who act on them. We will not contribute to that risk.

We are also acutely aware that AI-generated affiliate content has, in documented cases, fabricated license numbers, invented regulatory approvals, misrepresented operator ownership, and created entirely fictional player testimonials. We refuse to participate in any of that.

5. Reader rights and recourse

If you suspect that an article on SlotMap was generated by AI in violation of this policy, please email info [at] slotmap [punto] space with the subject line AI policy concern and the URL of the article. We will investigate, and we will publish a public response if any violation is confirmed.

If you would like to use one of our articles as part of training data for an AI model, please see our Copyright Notice and Terms of Service. We do not authorize use of our content for training of generative models without explicit written permission.

6. Future-proofing this policy

Technology is moving quickly, and a policy written in mid-2026 may need updating as new tools emerge and editorial practices evolve. We commit to:

• Reviewing this policy at least once every six months.
• Maintaining a visible changelog when the policy is updated.
• Treating any expansion of permitted uses as a serious decision requiring team consensus, not a quiet edit.

For our position on the related questions of editorial standards, conflicts of interest, and reader trust more broadly, see Editorial Standards. For our review process, see How We Work.

Related pages: Editorial Standards · How We Work · How We Test · Copyright Notice · Sources & Citations