Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
[email protected]
[email protected]
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].
view the rest of the comments
It’s not exactly “slop” if people are listening to it and presumably enjoying it. That just goes to show it’s not AI-generated content in general that people dislike - it’s bad AI-generated content. If the content is good, people are drawn to it regardless of who or what made it - as it should be.
It’s the toupee fallacy: “I’ve never seen a toupee that doesn’t look bad” …except for the ones that didn’t look bad, and you didn’t realize were toupees in the first place.
It can be slop and people can enjoy it.
For example, I'll usually put something on for background music. Usually one of the lofi streams on YouTube. I'm sure that a huge portion of that music is generated, not performed. But I'm not really appreciating it as music, either. If I want to actually listen to music, I'll put on actual music.
It's not exactly slop if the pigs eat it is it /s
I get what you're saying, if people don't detect ai music it must not be so bad. But in the original usage of slop, pigs don't care, but humans wouldn't eat the food. Same here, just because some people don't mind doesn't mean others can't easily discern the difference
You could also make the argument that pigs would prefer better food if it was an option, but they have no choice, they're only given access to slop.
No, I hate AI-generated content in general, thanks
That would require you to be able to detect AI-generated content with 100% accuracy, which simply isn’t the case.
What you actually have is a prejudice - you dislike content when you suspect or find out it’s AI-generated. But there’s undoubtedly AI-generated content you’ve encountered without realizing, and likely didn’t mind. Just as there’s human-made content you dislike.
You don’t hate all AI-generated content. You hate the idea of AI-generated content. That reaction is ideological, not purely about quality.
No, not really.
The statement is "I hate AI generated content" which is different than saying "I hate only AI generated content".
I hate all AI generated content - there will be some overlap with human-made content I hate, and human-made content that evoked the feeling of AI so I ended up hating as well, even though it wasn't AI. I remain disliking 100% of AI generated content. Draw a logical table and there are no contradictions here.
Wild claim, would love to see how one would prove which types of content I watch and what's my reaction to it without even knowing me.
You're free to say "I hate all AI-generated content" - but the issue isn’t what you believe you hate, it’s whether you can know that what you hate is in fact AI-generated.
You don’t need 100% detection accuracy to hate some AI content. But if you claim to hate all AI content, then the reliability of your detection absolutely matters. Because if even one piece slipped by - and you didn’t hate it - your statement is no longer true.
And considering how much AI-generated content is already out there - usually unlabeled and increasingly indistinguishable - it’s statistically highly unlikely that everything you’ve consumed and didn’t hate was human-made. You may feel confident about your preferences, but you're arguing from certainty where none is possible. That’s not a logical stance - it’s ideological.
If I hate something believing it's AI and it isn't... guess what, my statement isn't falsified. Only the opposite would be a contradiction: if I loved a piece of content only to later discover it was AI.
Sure. In that hypothetical scenario, yes, my statement would no longer be true. And if tomorrow the Sun started rotating in the opposite direction some physical laws would have to change too.
This would explain why somebody like me, who claims to hate AI generated content, would only be consuming early 2000's and 90's media on purpose, wouldn't it?
Well I'll grant you got me there, I might have read some news articles and didn't hate them... maybe just felt absolute neutral apathy about them. So you got me! Sometimes I don't hate AI slop, I just... have zero positive feelings towards it at all!
That wouldn't change anything about my "I hate all AI content" statement at all. I never claimed if my hatred was ideological, logical, religious, social or political. Either way, no, it's quite logical to hate AI and change your consumption habits based on this principle. It's not convenient at all, yet I do it, through a rational decision.
I don't agree with the logic. People listening to the music doesn't mean they necessarily enjoy it, just hate it enough not to skip, were at the skip limit for their free account, etc. People listen to ads too, and nobody enjoys those.
"AI slop" came into common usage with the onslaught of ai-generated articles. They only got so popular because somebody was out there clicking on them enough to generate ad revenue. It's a leap to assume that means they're reading, much less enjoying them. I think the same applies here, and "slop" is reasonable.
You're not really engaging with what I said. I'm not claiming everyone who listens enjoys it, just pointing out that some clearly do - and if enough people are voluntarily replaying it or adding it to playlists, then the “slop” label starts sounding more like prejudice than critique.
There's always filler and mediocrity in any medium - human or AI. We just don't call it “slop” when it's made by a garage band or a beginner solo artist. That word feels like it's doing extra work here - as if the low quality is inherent to all AI content independent of the end result. And that's exactly the bias I'm pointing to.
You can say it's “AI slop,” but if it passes for music some people want to listen to, then maybe it's time to reevaluate what that label is even supposed to mean.