and that ways lies a poison pill to community engagement.
… mostly due to bias-forming rhetoric like calling any generated image “slop.” People had the same kneejerk attitude toward all CGI, long after CGI looked fine. At some point it’s the monkey ladder experiment: self-perpetuating behavior through performative distaste.
What specifically is wrong with this image?
Well, aside from the fact that it already looks blurry…
Most AI image generation is inherently unethical, for multiple reasons. That’s not necessarily something to do with the visual quality of the image, but it’s lumped under all the reasons to hate AI image generation that are all collectively stated under the pejorative “slop”.
Such is modern slang.
The text also being soft indicates that’s a style choice.
This is misusing a pejorative to turn specific criticism into general prejudice. Say ‘I hate slop’ and you’ll get near-universal agreement, but people who mean ‘fuck all uses of AI’ are not even the majority. The pattern of retreating from ‘I hate how it looks’ to ‘quality doesn’t matter!’ is straight-up pretense.
It’s a low-stakes opportunity to examine how language escalates tension. People in that absolute extreme position are emboldened. People merely tired of shrimp Jesus or whateverthefuck get lumped with them. All nuance is stomped out of this important new term, originally for ‘uncurated spam.’
Maybe so, and maybe I’m interpreting Coopr wrong.
But on the quality of the image itself… it’s not much of a meme in my eyes. It’s a relatively simple character, the only goofy thing about them is that they’re a frog. The caption doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, and neither the caption, character, or scenery seems to relate to each other. Maybe I’m just unfamiliar with “modern humor” (so to speak) but I just don’t get it.
mindbleach
Derpykat5