35
Is "AI slop" enough? (lemmy.eco.br)
submitted 14 hours ago by flango@lemmy.eco.br to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

AI companies and users of AI are littering all aspects of public space with "AI slop", but does this term reflect what it really is? We have terms like visual pollution, sound pollution, etc. In a way, "AI pollution " seems a proper term, but AI also pollutes meaning, like with AI generated text. Is AI pollution a new form of "microplastics"? Everywhere and in everything?

top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

Thought pollution

[-] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago

AI slop implies the problem is that the audience likes it, and to some that is the problem, but the real issue is how difficult it makes it to find the stuff you actually want to see. "AI spam" is the term I default to using.

[-] pineapple@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 hours ago

I think slop is a good word, its funny and condecending. Pollution just doesnt hit the "fuck you and your shitty product" spot the same way slop does.

[-] SGGeorwell@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Yes, slop is good for this purpose. I’m sticking with slop. Slop it top.

[-] owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca 13 points 11 hours ago

Information pollution.

Saying "AI pollution" would be like saying "microplastics pollution" -- we generally refer to the thing being polluted, not the pollutant.

[-] everett@lemmy.ml 19 points 12 hours ago

When naming something, not only should you make sure it clearly describes the thing but doesn't describe anything else. "AI pollution" sounds just as much like something that pollutes AI (for example, training it with false information), much like how "air pollution" is stuff that pollutes air.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Ironically, I see far more visual pollution from people whinging about AI slop than actual AI slop at this point. People will incessantly complain about AI everywhere, derailing conversations and adding noise. If somebody spots an em dash somewhere then a whole thread turns into a discussion of whether something written by an LLM or not, and whether it's acceptable for humans to use em dashes. It's frankly exhausting.

[-] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 3 points 7 hours ago

To be fair, I think this is a Lemmy issues moreso than the broader internet. I could be totally off base there, though. It just seems in my experience that Lemmy is particularly anti AI, while the rest of the Internet seems to be fairly neutral towards the technology as a whole, and potentially upset about the environmental impact and increasing prices for computer components.

Again, I may be off base, though, as Lemmy is the only social media I use, so I'm not tapped into that side of things.

I will say, if I notice people use the word "quietly" (as in "it will quietly revolutionize X" or "this has quietly changed my habits") I do immediate assume it's Chatgpt. Lol. And for what it's worth, I'm not against AI in general, I think it's great as a brain storming tool, a useful way to collect your thoughts, to bounce ideas off of, and to use when stuck on a project. But it's uses are so limited compared to what it's billed as that it is in no way this magical gift from on high like some think, but nor is it a completely and totally useless thing. The problem is that it's being shoved down the throat of every website, device, and user of the Internet at such incredible rates that we're choking on it. And the fact that it can "talk" like a person means people are anthropomorphizing it and that is very, very dangerous long term to the mental health of humans as a whole.

My $0.02, anyway

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago

Yeah that's definitely my impression as well. Fediverse as a whole has become a place where people love to come to rant about LLMs now.

[-] its_kim_love 2 points 7 hours ago

Yeah you're going to keep hearing us because ai sucks ass.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago

People who add vapid noise to threads because of their personal pet peeve suck way more ass than AI ever could.

[-] its_kim_love 2 points 5 hours ago

People who keep engaging while pretending to be the one rising above it. Gotta be my favorite gender.

[-] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 8 points 13 hours ago

capitalism is bothering you, not ai. there's nothing inherently wrong with ai, this "slop" is just the many forms capital can take. it is not much different from terrible film productions created only with the purpose of capital accumulation.

[-] its_kim_love 2 points 7 hours ago

It can be both. I will continue hating billionaires and their shitty ideas. A terrible film can be ignored.

[-] Melobol@lemmy.ml 6 points 13 hours ago

I like to believe that LLMcan be used the right way.
I believe there is a genuine use for them.
The fact hhat now you can probably buy an AI powered trash can or toilet seat, is not the AI's fault.

[-] Kynsey@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 hours ago

I think the very design of LLMs makes them not very useful even when used "correctly". They are basically machines that are very good at sounding plausible. But they have absolutely 0 way of checking if info is correct or not. It's just whatever is reinforced the most in their model is treated as correct.

I think the underlying technology likely has uses. But the way it is currently being produced into products is something that, even if you tried to use it correctly, would simply end up tricking you with some plausible bullshit. Maybe you tell it to edit a paper and it decides to "fix" one of your opinions to be the most common one. Maybe you tell it to tell you the nuance behind a historical fact and it makes up a very likely sounding story that is entirely bullshit which you then repeat to someone else without realizing.

The ability it has to sound plausible is its biggest flaw. Because an LLM will VERY rarely if ever say the words, "I don't know." You'd basically have to have gone in and coded it to respond to that specific question to respond with "I don't know". Otherwise it'll just make something up.

[-] Melobol@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 hours ago

The problem with the current technology, that the future technology will never be worse than what we have freely available. If you check the last 3 years of development where it was and where it is now - it is worrisome and awesome at the same time.

And human slop isn't better than AI slop. If you put the same effort in a human product (literally 2 sentence to prompt the AI for results) - the outcome is predictable.

I believe the expression is: shit in - shit out.

So if you are able to spend the time to write an article, ask the ai to proofread it and telling it to show you what it needs to change (you can even adk for ourside links and can verify one by one) - then you will be able manually edit your own document - without any AI slop dripping in.

Is it extra work? Nope - if you get a human proofreading done - you still have to do these changes yourself. And you will be responsible for what you do with the information.

The thing is that we expect AI to do those last steps and making editoral decisions - is our mistake and laziness.
That's the human slop.

[-] Kynsey@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 hours ago

That's not really what I was getting at.

What I am saying is that LLMs are extremely good at making things sound plausible. That is the issue I was bringing up. LLMs are much better at making things that are incorrect seem correct than many people realize, and people are not infallible.

If you have a human just entirely make something up you can usually tell it is entirely made up if you read it. A human has to put a lot of effort in to make bullshit sound convincing. LLMs do this effortlessly. So when using them it's easy to make a mistake and let some of the extremely plausible bullshit slip through.

I don't disagree at all that humans can create bullshit too. My concern is just that LLMs are so good at it that many people get convinced. Just look at all these cases of people using them for normal mundane things who get drawn in and fall into "AI Psychosis".

I think it is a result of human brains just not being wired to deal with a machine that talks like a person. Psychologically it's an issue. Even if we logically know it's just a machine our brains do not. So people end up falling into this trap where they treat it like a person. Then it tells them insane things and they just start believing it.

Even if say 90% of people never had this issue it's still a problem. If a new drink gave 10% of people who drank it a psychotic break we'd regulate it to hell and back. Put warning labels on everything. Make it prescription only. etc. LLMs are just out there for anyone to pick up and use like there's no tomorrow. It's a serious problem.

[-] Melobol@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 hours ago

Agreed. Human brains are not good with AI because we get su mich praise from them And they keep the engagement going with even more praise.
I actually made sure that every model I use don't fo those, not referencing itself as a person.
It is really addictive to "just ask one more question".
People will develop emotional bonds to brands "ohh Gemini is so funny!", "Claude is such a sarcastic asshole".
And let's not start on getting lazy. Laziness is evolutionary trait. Using AI is as lazy as it can be.

[-] Kynsey@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago

I am also just concerned that it's being used a substitute for human connection. With the way capitalism tends to isolate people and get them feeling all lonely. It's easy to see how someone could get drawn in and use an LLM as a replacement for a person to talk to.

[-] Melobol@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago

There were outliners already who were happy with their waifus, marrying their body pillow - and so on.
AI just make it way easier to cut those pesky human connections that require actual effort.

[-] Kynsey@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago

I don't know that I'd call them happy. More like coping. A substitute will always be just that. I don't see it as their fault so much as the fault of capitalism. Most people replace human connection with materialism to some degree. Those people just take it to the extreme.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago

xô, flango

[-] otp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 12 hours ago

I feel like this is another example of a topic title with a different question than the body.

I interpreted the title ask asking something like whether "AI slop" is good enough. Or asking if "AI slop" is where the technology peaks. (As in, is AI slop enough, or can we do more with AI models?)

[-] everett@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 hours ago

I feel like it's yet another a thinly-veiled rant disguised as a question. Which is not to say I disagree with their premise, but there has to be a better community for this soapbox stuff.

[-] HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

I think AI is still in its infancy and we have yet to know it's full potential. Nevertheless, I have a love-hate relationship with AI.

[-] Kynsey@lemmy.ml 4 points 13 hours ago

I don't see it so much as pollution as a smokescreen being put in place on purpose. It is my belief that these companies plan to so heavily flood the internet with AI generated nonsense that they can then begin to charge a premium for access to verified information.

That is why I have made an effort to collect actual physical books all printed before AI became a thing that have lots of info I can use to verify things. I have books on medical info, various crafts, construction, agriculture, copies of works from Lenin, Marx, Mao, Stalin, Marcus Aurelius, Plutarch, Voltaire, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, etc. Math textbooks, science textbooks. I've got around 80 or so right now. A lot of them I got for free and the rest I got for very cheap (anywhere from 1$ to 9$) because I go after used books. Many are from the 70s and 80s.

The idea is that say in like 2035 if I need to know something random I have a bunch of 100% human made and verified information. Even if some is a bit outdated it's better than AI slop.

[-] jh29a 2 points 13 hours ago

I think this is an interesting philosophical question, because I would guess that because I think AI slop and AI pollution are the same thing, I react the same way to either of the spellings. But I can also immediately see how AI pollution sounds worse because it's connected to pollution. In conclusion, I should not think of myself as more "rational" than I am, where by rational I really mean "able to control the meaning categories that my brain uses".

[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 1 points 11 hours ago

We might want two separate terms: one for the personal ways that AI slop infects and manipulates your mind, and another for the way it makes the wider cultural landscape difficult to navigate by adding noise and intercepting your attempts to find the original sources of concepts or artifacts which might bring you into a community (and the fact that these communities are now all playing defense because of the everlasting scraping DDoS).

I’m concerned about the former because I think it might make doing anything at all much more difficult.

But I’m concerned about the latter because we… don’t really know how much pollution culture can withstand before collapsing. We may already be in the early stages of something like Kessler Syndrome but for communications.

[-] GreyShuck@feddit.uk 2 points 13 hours ago

Noetic pollution.

[-] theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

I might just start calling it that.

this post was submitted on 23 May 2026
35 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

54385 readers
1068 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS