The term “AI slop” hides conversations we need to have. When we call something “AI slop,” we’re often doing more than complaining about one output. Optimists use the term to quarantine failures away from AI’s promise; critics use it to indict the whole technology. Slop-talk thus lets us feel like we’re discussing important social issues without actually doing it. I argue that we should have those discussions openly.

What an absolute sniveling shill slimebag.

I don't think that's what the author is saying. The argument seems to boil down to "using oversimplified language does not get your point across as effectively, because words mean different things to different people". Its a linguistics essay rather than commentary on whether LLMs are good or bad

The author wants people to say "ban all generative content" or "ban bad generative content" because "ban slop" could mean both depending on who's talking.

This bit for example, for where AI tech marketing also uses the term:

One attitude “AI slop” can express is an attitude of quarantine. In this use, the slop is seen as unfortunate and not representative. To call it “slop” is to try to cordon it off from the good stuff that AI can produce, the useful translation, the genuinely helpful code, or the new mathematical discovery3. This is how Sam Altman used the term when OpenAI launched Sora 2. Creativity, he wrote, could be headed for “a Cambrian explosion,” while the “RL-optimized slop feed” was a degenerate case they put great care into avoiding4. It is also the attitude Google tried to take when its AI search suggested using glue to keep cheese on pizza. The company said such results came from uncommon queries5. The embarrassing case was sealed off so the rollout could go on.

using oversimplified language does not get your point across as effectively

Which is why in choosing a description for the author, I used very unambiguous language.

That was a joke. Mostly.

Seriously though...

I'm not interested in "debating" techno-fascists. And neither are they interested in "debating". They're trying to disrupt and disarm anti-GenAI... no, fuck that... anti-slop movements. "Slop" is an important rallying term in said movements. And as such, it threatens the technobros. So they're coopting, appropriating, and diluting. (Think of the Trump administration's reaction to equally-short and quippy "8647" which anti-Trump movements use... and largely don't any more.)

I've never heard any boosters use the term "slop". If they do, it's mostly a new phenomenon. Appropriation and dilution in service to the bubble.

So instead of focusing on AI slop, we should ask directly the questions slop-talk lets us postpone by seeming to settle them, questions about the kind of society we should be building and what roles AI should play in it. When someone is sick, lonely, or frightened, do we want a real person in the room, or will a bot do?13 Do we want our children taught and shaped mostly by people, or are we content to hand that to machines? When a court weighs whom to believe, or an employer whom to hire, do we want a person behind the call, or can a machine sort it?14 Do we want the systems that increasingly run our lives steered by a few private companies, or held more widely accountable? And do we want a shared world we can make sense of together, or one so flooded with synthetic stuff that no one can tell what is real?15 None of these can be answered by asking whether AI produces quality or slop.

What.

The actual.

Fuck.

None of these are debates. How fucking evil does one have to be to try to pretend there's a "debate" here? For any of the above. And pretending there is an argument to be made for children being raised by LLMs or having robots take care of the sick only benefits the fucking assholes force-feeding everyone slop. "Don't do activism. Just 'debate'."

Also, consider where this was published. "npj Artificial Intelligence". Just look at this page. It's mission is to gratuitously peddle AI hype. AI *criti-*hype in some cases maybe. But AI hype nonetheless.

Fair criticism overall, and to be clear I don't personally have a problem with calling it slop. I agree that its a good rallying term. I also don't think anyone here needed this article, since we already use clear language when it matters (ex. Writing community rules), and slop/other shorthand when it doesn't.

My earlier comment was mostly because I've seen how these discussions quickly spiral, and I try to add context for people who haven't gone off site to read the content being discussed.

So they're coopting, appropriating, and diluting.

I didn't consider this, and yea I agree. The article does end up helping the AI companies more than it hurts. I still think that this was unintentional on the author's part, since I feel that the intended audience was other academics and clarity does matter in those settings.

None of these are debates. [...] "Don't do activism. Just 'debate'."

Again, I don't think that's what that paragraph is going for 😄 The way each 'debate' is framed, each one has a more and more obvious answer. I think the author wants to focus attention and activism on those issues. Like these last two are worded in a way that makes it clear what the author thinks is right:

Do we want the systems that increasingly run our lives steered by a few private companies, or held more widely accountable? And do we want a shared world we can make sense of together, or one so flooded with synthetic stuff that no one can tell what is real?

I don't really get his point since the supposed debate on "whether AI produces slop or not" is directly tied to the other issues, and we can dislike generative AI for multiple reasons + advocate for multiple things.

However it's true that some of those issues are more dangerous than others. We needed laws a long time ago to prevent generative AI from getting into each of those other areas.

intended audience was other academics

You're being awfully charitable calling anyone involved with this paper or npj AI "academics".

Like these last two are worded in a way that makes it clear what the author thinks is right:

Do we want the systems that increasingly run our lives steered by a few private companies, or held more widely accountable? And do we want a shared world we can make sense of together, or one so flooded with synthetic stuff that no one can tell what is real?

But look at the not-so-hidden assumptions: that AI is going to run our lives. As if it's a foregone conclusion. The author doesn't leave any room for pushing back on that premise.

"These giant orphan-crushing mallets are inevitably going to crush all the orphans. So we really should be talking about whether the orphan-crushing mallets should be wielded by polite orphan-crushing-mallet wielders or rude orphan-crushing-mallet wielders."

How about we fucking throw the orphan-crushing malletsLLMs and anyone making them into volcanoes? But the article makes no allowance for that. It doesn't want you thinking such thoughts because that's bad for Nvidia's stock price.

Plus, the assumption that they'll "run our lives" implies that LLMs have at least some real-world application, which isn't a given either. By smuggling that assumption in, they're trying to sell you on the idea that LLMs aren't just a total scam the way, say, blockchain was all along.

It’s still AI slop as it’s a perfectly apt description of what it is, and what it does.