As a writer and editor, my problem with this is that very few people are any good at detecting AI. "AI slop" mostly means "I don't like this thing, and calling it 'AI slop' is the best way to turn other people against it".
A publisher I know had a book nominated for a "best cover art" award a few years ago. The nomination was almost immediately withdrawn for violating a non-existent "no AI" rule. The cover artist openly uses AI as part of the cover creation process, and talked about that quite publicly for more than a year before the nomination/withdrawal. When the ex post facto rule was made public (after the awards ceremony, of course), it was written so broadly that if it were followed, any covers that had ever been opened in Photoshop would have to be disqualified going forward. That, of course, hasn't happened. It was merely a pretext to target one artist (and possibly the publisher). Plus, two of the four remaining covers that were nominated also probably had AI in them. But once the scalp was claimed, nobody bothered with the rest.
This is not to say there is no obvious AI writing. Project Gutenberg began using AI to generate blurbs for its thousands of books, and the AI-ness of the blurbs is obvious and painful. But "AI slop" can be said by anybody, and is, and has become useful for manipulating people, and that's how it is used, not as an accurate analysis most of the time.
Log in
Another one:
AI;DW: AI, didn't watch.
archive.today mirror | archive.org mirror
As a writer and editor, my problem with this is that very few people are any good at detecting AI. "AI slop" mostly means "I don't like this thing, and calling it 'AI slop' is the best way to turn other people against it".
A publisher I know had a book nominated for a "best cover art" award a few years ago. The nomination was almost immediately withdrawn for violating a non-existent "no AI" rule. The cover artist openly uses AI as part of the cover creation process, and talked about that quite publicly for more than a year before the nomination/withdrawal. When the ex post facto rule was made public (after the awards ceremony, of course), it was written so broadly that if it were followed, any covers that had ever been opened in Photoshop would have to be disqualified going forward. That, of course, hasn't happened. It was merely a pretext to target one artist (and possibly the publisher). Plus, two of the four remaining covers that were nominated also probably had AI in them. But once the scalp was claimed, nobody bothered with the rest.
This is not to say there is no obvious AI writing. Project Gutenberg began using AI to generate blurbs for its thousands of books, and the AI-ness of the blurbs is obvious and painful. But "AI slop" can be said by anybody, and is, and has become useful for manipulating people, and that's how it is used, not as an accurate analysis most of the time.