6 ms·

I mean, yes - but somehow this feels like a different category. At least to me. I view slop as the classic garbage like: [Thing] isn’t just [X]—it’s [more dram

by davidgh 27d ago

I mean, yes - but somehow this feels like a different category. At least to me. I view slop as the classic garbage like: [Thing] isn’t just [X]—it’s [more dramatic Y]. And [short validating statement]. I can see and smell this type of slop from a mile away. What I’m referring to is in the same family as slop but somehow different - it fools my brain by putting on the presentation of credibility and thus it is even worse. I can skip right over classic slop without much effort. This kind of text tricks me into laboring over it before I realize it’s hollow. So in that way, it’s worse than slop.

fyredge 26d ago
Technically, it's still slop. The first example is just slop that you recognise as slop. For reference, see gell-mann amnesia.
andrewflnr 26d ago
At least in my mind, lack of substance was always the defining feature of slop. Stuff like "it's not just x, it's y" would be reasonable (if grating) tics from a human writer. Whereas humans are also capable of clever-sounding but substance-free writing, and it still sucks. AI just produced enough slop that we were forced to give it a name.
Valakas_ 23d ago
I know what you mean. The sentence appears to makes sense, it is correct grammatically, but lacks substance. It's the equivalent of AI image generated stuff where at first glance the image looks fine, but it hurts your brain. Then the more you look the more you see nothing makes sense in it, and it just gives the appearance that it does. It's definitely worse that slop, because it really hurts your brain. You read it over and over, and feel like you're supposed to understand the sentence, it's coherent, eloquent even, but by the end of it, you don't know what the f it was about.
- andrewflnr 22d ago
  As far as terminology goes, I still see these both as subcategories of slop, but I can buy that they do deserve different categories of obvious slop versus more virulent slop.

by davidgh 27d ago

fyredge 26d ago

Technically, it's still slop. The first example is just slop that you recognise as slop. For reference, see gell-mann amnesia.

andrewflnr 26d ago

At least in my mind, lack of substance was always the defining feature of slop. Stuff like "it's not just x, it's y" would be reasonable (if grating) tics from a human writer. Whereas humans are also capable of clever-sounding but substance-free writing, and it still sucks. AI just produced enough slop that we were forced to give it a name.

Valakas_ 23d ago

I know what you mean. The sentence appears to makes sense, it is correct grammatically, but lacks substance. It's the equivalent of AI image generated stuff where at first glance the image looks fine, but it hurts your brain. Then the more you look the more you see nothing makes sense in it, and it just gives the appearance that it does. It's definitely worse that slop, because it really hurts your brain. You read it over and over, and feel like you're supposed to understand the sentence, it's coherent, eloquent even, but by the end of it, you don't know what the f it was about.

andrewflnr 22d ago
As far as terminology goes, I still see these both as subcategories of slop, but I can buy that they do deserve different categories of obvious slop versus more virulent slop.