Mastodawn

the term “slop” has been so successful as a way of dismissing AI content with the appropriate level of care (none, as nobody who cared made the slop) that I’m starting to see AI boosters try to change the meaning of the word. it’s important to push back when you see these information colonizers:

- insist that genuine human effort is slop because it isn’t to their taste (ie the new Mario movie)
- claim that their AI output isn’t slop because they “checked” it and found it to be particularly good

Show thread

Konstantin Weddige 1d ago

@zzt checking AI output may be the difference between negligent slop and slop, but it's still slop.

For the argument's sake, I would concede someone, that their AI generated content is not slop, if they didn't only check it, but considered a significant amount of alternative outputs. E. g. if they generated 100 sentences and checked all of them and chose one. But that's obviously not feasible.

Infinite monkeys will at some point type Hamlet, but to be Shakespeare one needs to recognise Hamlet.

Show thread

Luna Lactea 1d ago

@weddige @zzt At that point just write the sentence yourself for free in thirty seconds instead of paying 100 pissgpt tokens for two hours.

Show thread

Konstantin Weddige

@jackemled @zzt that's kind of the point of my argument. Using GenAI is only faster, if we lower our expectations (often to the point, that there are no expectations left). It's not more efficient, it's just slop.