6 ms·

It's not just other creatives that care, it's consumers. There's a lot of backlash on steam against games that contain AI content. Personally, while I think Gen

It's not just other creatives that care, it's consumers. There's a lot of backlash on steam against games that contain AI content. Personally, while I think GenAI has a place, I think this backlash is good. People have gotten way out ahead of their ski's and have gone way too hard on quantity instead of quality. If you use ChatGPT to do research for your book? Great. I bet it's better for it. Did you use ChatGPT to write your book? I have zero interest in reading it. It's a strong signal that no work was put into writing it so I should invest no work in reading it.

skydhash 1mo ago
I don’t really care if someone use AI, I care if the result is slop. And it very much seems like it’s very rare for those who use AI to care about the result and avoid producing slop. If it was bad, the hand produced result will also be criticized, but AI tools distort all the signals that let you avoid slop beforehand. No you need to invest time to recognize the slop and that time will not be given back to you.
627467 1mo ago
> backlash is good Because pre-AI, slop didnt exist? At least in the past meaningful criticism involved much more than name calling. I guess criticism slop is a natural progression and matches low effort creative slop. 0 moral higher ground AI slop accusations are tiring, spammy, and most of the time without any evidence to back it up other than prejudice and bad attitude[0] [0] https://www.davidrevoy.com/article1163/authenticity-problem https://www.davidrevoy.com/article1163/authenticity-problem
- happytoexplain 1mo ago
  This response is basically culture war bickering. The parent didn't imply that slop didn't exist pre-AI, so that's a purposeful mischaracterization. The simple fact is that AI absolutely exploded the amount of slop and, at the same time, lends itself to concealing the source of slop. There are other variables too distinguishing the human reaction to AI slop from the human reaction to human slop, but even ignoring that: Just the two things I mentioned, together, mean that, yes, of course, any rational person is going to constantly question (internally or out loud) whether things are genAI. So if "rational" is "good", then yes, the backlash is good. It's unreasonable to require evidence before even saying that something seems like bad genAI. And it's only a "prejudice" or "bad attitude" if you disagree with the premise (that genAI content is often bad in some way, either intrinsically or practically). Which, fine, make that argument. But that's not the argument you're making.

skydhash 1mo ago

I don’t really care if someone use AI, I care if the result is slop. And it very much seems like it’s very rare for those who use AI to care about the result and avoid producing slop. If it was bad, the hand produced result will also be criticized, but AI tools distort all the signals that let you avoid slop beforehand. No you need to invest time to recognize the slop and that time will not be given back to you.

627467 1mo ago

> backlash is good Because pre-AI, slop didnt exist? At least in the past meaningful criticism involved much more than name calling. I guess criticism slop is a natural progression and matches low effort creative slop. 0 moral higher ground AI slop accusations are tiring, spammy, and most of the time without any evidence to back it up other than prejudice and bad attitude[0] [0] https://www.davidrevoy.com/article1163/authenticity-problem https://www.davidrevoy.com/article1163/authenticity-problem

happytoexplain 1mo ago
This response is basically culture war bickering. The parent didn't imply that slop didn't exist pre-AI, so that's a purposeful mischaracterization. The simple fact is that AI absolutely exploded the amount of slop and, at the same time, lends itself to concealing the source of slop. There are other variables too distinguishing the human reaction to AI slop from the human reaction to human slop, but even ignoring that: Just the two things I mentioned, together, mean that, yes, of course, any rational person is going to constantly question (internally or out loud) whether things are genAI. So if "rational" is "good", then yes, the backlash is good. It's unreasonable to require evidence before even saying that something seems like bad genAI. And it's only a "prejudice" or "bad attitude" if you disagree with the premise (that genAI content is often bad in some way, either intrinsically or practically). Which, fine, make that argument. But that's not the argument you're making.