Content generation is one of the areas, where artificial intelligence has made great leaps. AI has become one of the powerful tools to create textual, visual, and all sorts of content because it can analyze stacks of data and produce material at a pace that outmatches the work of people. In generating AI content, researchers have examined information-novelty, as a criterion for search, summarization, filtering, as well as topic detection and tracking. These studies cover many factors that determine human perceptions of relevance and can provide insight into how AI may be used in content generation, including but not limited to scaling to the processing of larger corpora, faster processing time, and a reproducible and objective approach to content generation. But with the rise of these new AI content generation applications, there is very limited report available to compare how much better (or worse) is AI-generated content versus content written by human editors. This is what this paper attempt to fill the gap by comparing the quality of contents generated by AI editors and Human editors. This paper seeks to fill this gap by comparing AI-generated content with that which is written by humans. Different criteria will be used to measure the quality during this evaluation: information-novelty, relevance, and content recency. The paper will also discuss the difficulty in distinguishing between the content generated by humans and the one created by the artificial intelligence and currently available means for detection of AI-generated content.