this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2026
769 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
87079 readers
4026 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What? I mean, I don't vibe with all the stuff they do, but they absolutely put a ton of effort into what they put out. They have multiple teams and everything, it's not just one guy in his basement.
You leave Technology Connections alone! Alec is a national treasure!
"Babe, come to bed!"
"Can't, technology connections just dropped a video on the refrigeration cycle!"
"That was months ago!"
"This is the prequel, it's different!"
He works out of his spare room. Totally different.
Also, I think you'd have a really hard time trying to convince anyone that he makes anything resembling slop. The guy's "no effort November" videos are more well-researched than some masters' theses.
It's neoliberal propaganda lol
Whether it is or no, that doesn't make it slop.
Lol it literally does though
How about instead of insisting and asserting you actually add something to the conversation by explaining.
"Effort" is not an antonym of slop.
Anything new you try takes a ton of effort and the results will generally be pretty sloppy. It takes time and practice to make not-slop.
Rushing something to completion results in slop. It's hard to move fast! That doesn't make the final quality any better.
Using garbage tools and/or materials results in a garbage/slop output.
Doing something exclusively for the sake of profit leaves the result soulless. This one is a bit more controversial, but I 100% classify this as slop.
AI generated stuff is usually slop, and the sloppiest of slop, because it's often an amateur using garbage tools to rush something to completion for a quick buck.
Kurkesagt is, arguably, slop because they have slowly transitioned into trying to put out content as quickly as possible so that everyone working on it gets paid. Their whole thing is covering topics they themselves have not dedicate the time and effort to fully understand and master.
Also, slop is not a synonym for "unrecyclable trash". In my opinion, Kurkesagt is sloppy as hell! But the animations are fun, the voiceover is pleasant and the pop-sci is generally accurate enough to provide an interesting glimpse into whatever topic they're covering. They're still shoveling slop for profit though, sold out years ago and have a heavy bias towards explaining how capitalism, and their participation within it, is the most moral of choices one could make.
I think you're running with a very nonstandard definition of "slop" here.
Possibly. Probably just an old definition though, hence why I tried to explain it.
Re-reading though I feel like I should clarify that the "nonstandard definition" is definitely a negative adjective, just not 'damning' in the same way it seems to be being interpreted here.
While I can't speak for @itsjustachairmary it seems there's at least 2 of us with that, or a similar, definition!
How would you explain the "standard" definition?
The definition I think most of the internet has settled on is "no-effort, no-value content, about which neither creator nor viewer cares that it exists."
It has to satisfy all four criteria to be slop (no effort, no value, creator doesn't care, viewer doesn't care), but it doesn't necessarily have to be AI; still, generally speaking, non-AI content is so much more expensive and time consuming that people are unlikely to put in the work (and companies are unlikely to put in the money) to have it made.
Human-made memes and jokes aren't slop, partially because even when they're low effort bad photoshops, they make people laugh (or at least think amused thoughts). At the very least, a human can feel gratified to have made a thing they wanted to make. Human-made ads aren't slop, because the company at least cares that it provides enough of a return to justify paying an employee for its creation.
Honestly it seems like our definitions don't differ that much. Rephrasing my definition to your format: "little to no-value content, about which the creator cares little about, with the goal for mass appeal".
I don't think the amount of effort someone put into something changes it's value or quality. It feels like some kind of "blood sweat and tears are what's most important, that's why blood diamonds are the most valuable" shit y'know?
People can find value in anything, so I'm likely a bit more pervasive on what's "slop" quality.
I do emotionally agree that most human-made memes and jokes aren't slop but according to both of our definitions that doesn't really hold up. If it was just because the creator cared about their creation or the laugh was valuable that "unslops" a lot of, pretty terrible and objectively slop, slop. I think we're both missing something here, any ideas on what?
I disagree strongly about ads and see those of all shapes and provenance as the quintessential and original slop. The creators don't care about the ad, they're doing it for a paycheck with the benefactor only giving a shit about the "engagement" that comes from force feeding the ad to the masses.
No, I think the effort is key here, because the original pitch for calling AI output "slop" was, "if they don't care enough to make it, why would I care enough to read/look at/watch/listen to it?"
If it's anything churned out cynically, with only the desire to make money off of broad appeal, then we have to put Sherlock Holmes stories into that camp; certainly from "Hound of the Baskervilles" onward, if not all of it. Doyle cared about the work, and he put in plenty of time and effort to making it, and the readers definitely cared, but at the end of the day he was done with the character and just wanted to give the fans what they wanted so he could make a paycheck. We also have to put basically every movie in that camp, and pretty much every book written before the publishing industry took a nosedive in the late 90s. We have to put a ton of music into that category. Basically, anything other than indie street art.
As for ads never being art: I see what you're saying, but the "art-nouveau" style and movement began as advertising for theater performances in the 1890s. Similarly and more recently, there's a seminal and well-beloved Chobani ad from 2021 called "Dear Alice" that has defined and codified a lot of the "solarpunk" aesthetic. Somebody went through and erased all of the brand logos and set it to different music, and it's legitimately a beautiful little video about a touching parent/child relationship in a solarpunk future, but it was originally made as an ad.
Humans, especially artists, work for ad agencies; and sometimes they make art as a part of their paid work. It's not common by any means, but the fact that they were paid for it doesn't make it slop.
I think we need to partially disentangle "bad art" from "slop."
Slop is bad, but it doesn't just mean "bad." All slop is bad art, but we humans can try really hard and make bad or objectionable art with our own two hands just fine. "Birth of a Nation" is absolutely objectionable and deplorable, but it's not slop because D. W. Griffith truly believed in what he was making. "The Room" is objectively not a good movie, but Tommy Wiseau really cared about it. That doesn't mean many people are ever going to want to watch it unironically. "Friday" by Rebecca Black is really bad music, but it's not slop.
(Incidentally, in the same way, "slop" also doesn't mean soulless, anodyne, corporate, or misguided. Again, all slop is those things, but humans can do that on our own, too; even if we try real hard!)
Not all bad art is slop; that doesn't make it good art, it just makes it bad art by humans who tried hard (or at least tried a little bit) and did a bad job, or humans who were terrible people and that oozed out into their work.
Isn't that already covered without the additional metric of "effort"?
It's not just that, but I do think that is a large part. The corporate and soulless part you called out.
I think the "just wanted to give the fans what they wanted" and Doyle's ability to actually do just that saves it from the "little to no value" bit, which makes it pandering but not slop. The same can be said for a lot of movies, music, etc. Meanwhile a lot of street art is sloppy as hell from needing to rush due to illegality but that doesn't necessarily make it bad either.
I think both that and the "Dear Alice" video are examples of reclaimed slop. Someone saw the "little" value in the ad and opted to amplify it. I would classify those and similar examples as memes distilled from slop.
"Misguided" doesn't feel like it's a necessary part of "slop" but I otherwise agree.
Going the other way with examples, I think we can both agree that Fruit Love Island is absolutely slop, despite many viewers caring a lot about it's existence. But why exactly? And is it more or less "slop" than the original Love Island? Honestly I'm having a hard time justifying why Fruit Love Island isn't an example of a 'meme distilled from slop' when I really want to call it 'slop distilled from slop'.
I don't think so. The effort is an important part of it.
That's a good distinction, and I think one we should hang on to.
I think we may have hit upon another definitional difference here. "Slop" isn't linguistically descended from "sloppy," but rather both are descended from an older form of "slop," referring to the gooey scrap that is fed to pigs. It is something which exists in great quantities but low quality, and which the farmer quickly and carelessly tips into a trough for the pigs to eat, caring little for it beyond that it exists.
"Sloppy" derived from that word, carrying with it the quick and unappealing connotations, while the modern definition of "slop" brought with it the carelessness, quantity, and force-feeding connotations.
I don't think so. I think it was artists doing a job they could get paid for, but making good art within those constraints.
On reflection, that's totally fair. I move to have that stricken from the record.
Huh. Well, today I learned about something against my will.
Anyway, yeah, definitely slop. I think it's because the creator didn't care about it, and expended almost no effort toward creating it. You can tell they didn't care because they gave it all up. This is getting me less certain about the desire of the audience being important to something's slop status; that's probably way more subjective than this term needs.
That is an interesting question. Having never watched either, I don't know that I'm qualified to respond. I will say that the people who work on reality TV are pretty hard-working, though; so I'm inclined to think it's not slop. Bad art? Yes. But not slop.
Why? If someone is baking cookies it doesn't improve the cookies if they have to run a mile for each ingredient. What am I missing? Is it just that someone being willing to run and get each ingredient demonstrates a level of care?
Good catch! I do think that's a big part of the difference! In my old age I've definitely seen it go from sloppy->slop and in that process reclaim the old connotation of "low quality, high quantity animal feed". Specifically, back in my day, it wasn't uncommon to be using/hearing Microslop to refer to the company and it's shitty half-ass product implementations since at least 2018 (with Edge and Bing specifically), but it was more about being 'sloppy' than 'slop for the masses' y'know?
It makes 100% sense that the more popular definition would've lost the 'sloppy' association and gone back to the 'low quality, high quantity animal feed'.
However, bringing it back to the original topic, I do think that definition/perspective is more damning of Kurzkesagt. Their videos are rushed but they do take great care to not be sloppy in that way.
I think this is where we flip sides on the 'sloppy' vs. 'slop' distinction. I do think that objectively good art (if we pretend that's a thing) can be slop if it's purpose is 'high volume animal feed'. That might be coming from the culinary association of things like sloppy joes, casseroles, mashed veggies, biscuits and gravy, MREs, etc. as 'slop' and sometimes even 'tasty slop'.
I second that motion! The core concept was valid and beneficial a single extra word shouldn't detract from that :P
...Sorry to curse you with that... I have a friend who is really into both reality TV and tiktok+Instagram who was absolutely raging about it when it was popular and assumed it was more common knowledge...
I've tried watching a couple episodes of Love Island with said friend and, for me, it felt like some of the most soulless TV I've ever seen. To avoid cursing you with that experience as well, my experience of it was that everyone on set looks dead inside, they're all kissing eachother all the time but it doesn't look like any of them are having any fun. Then the producers intentionally do a "game" that breaks the norms of monogamy and then all the contestants robotically do a big show of performative jealousy, hurt and anger before going back to some of the most depressing and uncomfortable kissing I've ever seen.
I was using that and Fruit Love Island as a foil because I half joked that the FLI characters at least had more soul and personality, albeit cartoonish, than the contestants in the original show and my friend agreed.
Sorry I apparently needed to vent about that, lol -_-;
I had to have a good think about this, because no, performative or unproductive effort doesn't add anything. But...
...I think this gets closer—that the idea is important enough, that they cared enough, to put in the time and energy. But it has to be meaningful effort; the running-a-mile analogy wouldn't qualify, but there's a difference between someone serving me cookies that they worked at for hours to bake, and the same person handing me chemically-identical cookies that they purchased at the grocery store. Knowing that they cared enough to do that means that what they're trying to express means a lot to them (or at least that I do).
Sloppers don't have any messages that mean anything to them. They just care about the quantity; and in the case of AI, they literally can't care about the message. But the Chobani animators and the poster designers in 19th century Paris have a message that means a lot to them, and they bury it under the advertisement so that their art gets out there and they can also feed their family.
Oh man, remember Windows Vista? That was a slop-y and sloppy trip.
Yeah, I think partially because it's superficially quite polished. If you look closely you can see AI artifacts, but on a first glance it looks like an uncanny valley version of a polished, final product.
Hmmm. I'm going to have to think about it, but I really do think that the people there actually are putting in a ton of effort. And sometimes doing a bad job anyway, but I don't think they put out a large enough quantity to reasonably call it slop. Still, I'm intrigued by the question.
Interesting. I don't agree, but because at the end of the day, slop isn't made for humans, so it can't ever be objectively (granting your premise) good to the human palate. Guilty pleasure, sure. Perverse curiosity, yeah. But that isn't saying much, as the "Love Island" conversation is about to talk more about.
That said, I think I see where you're coming from. I do like me some sloppy joes and biscuits and gravy. Not all together, though.
Nah, I knew the risks when I signed up for this gig.
Dang. That sounds awful. Why do people subject themselves to that sort of...oh, prize money, right
That is one impressive bit of self-awareness, honestly. lol
That unfortunately tracks with overall American culture and it having deeply ingrained protestant work ethic. I was really hoping there was something more to it though
Why? Even my 'all ads are slop' position doesn't preclude ads from having a message the creators and/or artists do care about. I unfortunately do think that most slop peddlers do genuinely, and often passionately, have a specific message/idea/belief they are trying to communicate/perpetuate.
The problem comes from not having rigorously interrogated that message or engaged with it in any fundamental way. I would agree that an issue with AI is that it shortens the time from idea->creation such that the creator has even less time to engage with what they're creating and is even less likely to interrogate the message being spread. I would point to 'Dear Alice' as a perfect example of how that's not an exclusively AI thing though.
You mean back when windows was good :P
Ooh, that's a real good phrase! I'm stealing that!
I would agree! And I do understand they do seem to be trying to do their best given the environment they exist within.
Would comparing them to a prison chef be a good metaphor? It's a hard job that takes a lot of work and they're doing the best with what they've got, but the final outcome is still slop. They're prisoners like the rest of us and I understand why they don't defy the guards(funders and platforms) and raid the commissary, serve us the same meals that they provide for the guards, show up in solidarity during a strike, etc. but I do respect them significantly less for it.
I can see the distinction you're pointing at but I don't see the difference, it 'feeds' millions of people.
I don't follow. Then who is it made for?
... On self reflection I might have a problem with high slop tolerance because I immediately went 'if done right that could actually be pretty good!'
To be fair, I guess half the 'fun' of Love Island is the lack of personality? The explanation I got was that it was like watching someone stream playing 'Sims'. The streamer then fucks with the 'sims' to see what happens giving the audience the 'whats going to happen next!?' high. As the audience you can project whatever personality you want onto the characters and the soullessness gives a blank canvas that allows the viewer to fill in the blanks which allows for a better reality tv show with broader mass appeal than could otherwise be created?
... Yeah I don't really get it, but to each their yum.
I'm definitely not a grindset guy. I don't mean this in a "prove yourself" sort of way, I mean it in a "making stuff that doesn't matter is easy" sort of way. Maybe I'm too manipulated by the modern world, but I can't think of a way to show that something matters to you aside from making some kind of sacrifice; of time, or energy, or whatever. I don't mean "toiling for weeks on a tweet," I mean "at least thinking about it for a few minutes."
I think that's the distinction I'm trying to make, though. If it's slop, the creator doesn't care about it. Doesn't care enough to put in any actual effort, tries to flood the zone instead of thinking about it long enough to produce anything meaningful.
Yeah, so I think here you're applying my definition to your example and pointing out that it doesn't match. Which is what I would expect. Hence the conversation (which is excellent, incidentally).
That's more or less what I mean by "effort," though said in the negative. Well put.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Oh man, we were having such a nice conversation, and now we've gotta fight? Bummer. ;-)
With my warmest regards.
Fantastic analogy. Especially:
Agreed, same.
But now I think I'm starting to see that our disagreement is more one of very small degrees than of anything substantive. Maybe you figured that out a while ago.
The algorithm. It just has to pass muster long enough that the algorithm serves it up to a real human. I guess in this analogy, the algorithm is the uncultured swine. I think I buy that.
I think the problem there would be the tomato. It's too sweet and tangy: I don't think there's much way to make it work with the creamy flavor of the sausage gravy. Source: sometimes I get a bit of jam in my biscuits and gravy, or ketchup in mac and cheese, with a somewhat unpleasant result.
When you put it that way, I'm annoyingly much more ok with it. So it's a dating sim that you're just not playing.
Not my thing either, but I guess I get it a little more now.
Sorry, definitely didn't mean to imply you were just meant it in a 'ah yes that makes sense in a broader cultural context' way.
That is exactly what I'm pointing at with a 'protestant ethic' but it really comes down to specific definitions of 'sacrifice'. A night out with friends could be described as a 'sacrifice' of time and money to show care/affection for those people, but if it's something you enjoy is it really a sacrifice? As an example, I enjoy making things, and making things for others is a good source of both inspiration and 'disposal' for lack of better word. Making sure the things I make find good homes and not just making junk is a form of care in my opinion.
If it is something you don't enjoy does that sacrifice actually show that care for others? Personally, I can think of few things worse than a night out with someone who doesn't want to be there and isn't having fun.
Watching Love Island with my friend wasn't a sacrifice because I got the fun of watching a psychological horror film, they got their 'sims' playtime and we had an interesting/fun/silly discussion afterwards. In the same way that the time I'm spending talking to you isn't a sacrifice because it's providing interesting thoughts and perspectives that I might not run into otherwise is a useful challenge to my own beliefs/perspectives. Hopefully it's the same for you?
It's hard to understate the damage the 'self-sacrifice' mentality can cause. A lot of relationships are ruined by two people trying to show they care for eachother by deliberately and intentionally sabotaging themselves at every opportunity. A lot of 'activism' is people sacrificing their time and energy doing things that are well meaning but nobody asked for, help nobody, and often cause harm.
I do think it shows a desire or intent to care, but I don't think it automatically or necessarily translates.
But if they spent a whole week thinking on that tweet then surely it's more important to them than someone who only spent a few minutes! /s
I think this is a big piece actually! I would agree that spam is incapable of communication a message. Not that it doesn't have one, but by 'flooding the zone' at best it gets filtered and ignored, at worst it triggers a severe reactionary response.
I do feel like there is still something we keep circling around here but I'm unsure what it is or how to suss it out.
The original commercial promotion a company that in reality is the antithesis of everything 'solarpunk' and which deliberately and intentionally does everything in its power to prevent the sort of future imagined in the commercial.
BRING IT! :P I think we can both agree 7 was actually pretty good. The extreme drop in quality from 7 to vista was shocking plus it now being old and dated makes comparisons hard. However, I would argue that 11 has more bugs, more adware/spyware, worse performance, less customization and less 'salvagability' than Vista. It just doesn't feel as bad thanks to the slow enshittification that was 8, 8.1, 10.
My original comment was coming from that assumption but you, and others, did not think so and honestly it does still feel like I'm missing something big and important but we've spent how many words trying to find it? And I still don't know what it could be. I do very much appreciate you being willing to explore it with me though! Thank you!
I was definitely coming from the perspective of the humans are the swine and the algorithm was the gatekeeper, logistics, feeding machine, etc. The prison analogy was partially to communicate that humans do often treat other humans like swine.
However I am realizing that's a bit of a dated perspective and with the modern Internet the 'algorithm' is still the gatekeeper, etc. but the goal is primarily to feed bots to better sheepdog the humans. So the root miscommunication comes from conflating 'slop', aka "dogfood" with 'slop', aka "prison food". So when I call 'tablescraps' slop it's confusing because that's neither food for dogs nor low quality dogfood, it's premium dogfood! Describing the ingredients doesn't clarify anything because it's not really any different other than process and packaging. I think that's the exact sort of insight I was looking for! Thank you! Does that all track for you as well?
Oh yeah. It's definitely not a haphazardly mix together kind of thing. But a creamy bolognese sauce on biscuits? It'd be weird. But I'd try it!
...That's such a better description of what we took 2 episodes to figure out how to communicate!
For the purposes of this definition of slop, yes, that counts as effort! Even if it's a thing you like, you did put time into it. You did show that it's valuable to you, and that you care about the outcome. If you're an excellent cartoonist and a whip-smart comedian, a 10/10 comic strip you dashed off in five minutes about a topic you've been thinking on for weeks might well represent the culmination of decades of honing your craft and contain within a great wellspring of thought and consideration. Absolutely not slop.
In fairness, I'm the same way as you, so I might be biased here.
I think that gets more into the weeds about whether or not it's good art, in terms of the idiom we've been using. Because you're right about that, but there are also few things more comforting than a friend showing up somewhere that they don't want to be just because they know you need them.
But what I'm saying is that it was a sacrifice. Not a large one, of course; and not one that cost you much. But you could've spent that time playing video games yourself, or cooking, or writing a book, or hang gliding, or whatever. You also chose to sacrifice that part of you that didn't want to watch Love Island, which is again not much, but not nothing. You chose to spend it doing something with them; something that it turned out that you enjoyed, though not for the same reason they did.
There's something to the words "effort" and "sacrifice" that you don't like, and I think I see why (as we'll talk about later). Does the word "choice" hit you better? It isn't exactly what I mean, but I'm starting to think it might have more to do with an opportunity cost that is evaluated and intentionally selected, than more broadly expending some kind of energy. AI has no opportunity cost, at the individual level, which means that no one is choosing specifically to do it. They aren't putting anything of themselves in it. It has no value because it isn't them. (This isn't a framing that I've been able to get a good handle on yet, so right now it's just a topic for conversation. Seems like I can trust you with that.)
One hundred percent. This has been a pleasure. In a lot of ways I figure out what I think by writing it down, so this has been a very useful challenge. I'm really enjoying and getting benefit from it. But you and I could be doing something else; the fact that we're both choosing to be here, honing our arguments, is meaningful.
This may be a silly analogy, but it's kind of like the old phrase, "we know you have a choice when it comes to air travel, and we thank you for flying with us." It's not a sacrifice in the sense of giving up something good or deep, but if you select Delta, you're sacrificing a flight on United. You're making a choice. With slop, you don't have to make a choice. You can send an agent on all of the flights at once!
Yeah, I think that's definitely the dark side of this conversation. But like eating, exercise, saving money, alcohol, sex, and so many other enjoyable or even good things, sacrifice can become a disorder when taken too far. In the example you gave, I don't think those two people are sacrificing and sabotaging themselves for each other, but for the feeling of "winning the friendship." The activist is sacrificing, not for the movement, but just so they can feel good about themselves. So I get why you don't have a positive association with the word "sacrifice" (because of my upbringing, I don't see it as a necessarily negative word).
"Intent" is another good word that we could probably use here for what I'm calling "effort," though it's also inexact. Slop has no intent.
lol. As someone who has labored over a text message for hours that ended up being sent as literally the phrase "ok, thanks!", I can't say I entirely disagree, but I do recognize how ridiculous it is and that I'm not normal in that.
This is basically what I meant by saying that Kurzgesagt's output wasn't enough to call it "slop." Though that's probably subjective.
We're getting close with "intent" and "choice." It's not exactly those, or "effort" or "sacrifice," but almost like...the midpoint between all four terms.
Oh, yeah. It's a great irony that Chobani paid for it. I suppose it's kind of the modern version of patronage, though, isn't it? The Medicis were brutal, violent, and manipulative, but they sponsored some of the most enduring artwork of the European Renaissance, including that of all four Ninja Turtles. That doesn't make them good, but it does mean that some stuff they did caused goodness as a second-order effect.
No argument there. Vista was the low point between the high points of XP and 7.
No argument there, either. I switched to Linux a couple years ago because I was tired of that dance. And now we've completed the Lemmy carcinization: all conversations eventually evolve into either Linux conversations or socialism conversations (and the night is still young for us to hit both!).
Very much a pleasure! There are probably as many definitions of "slop" as there are people on the internet, and maybe I'm the one who's wrong. But I think you've got the spirit.
I think so! And with the gift of "intent" earlier, I think we can extend the metaphor a little bit.
The intent of a home-cooked meal is to express love to your friends and family. The intent of the food at a full-service restaurant is to be the context about which you spend time with loved ones, or to impress or experience. The intent of fast food is to impart energy in a way that's convenient and enjoyable enough that others will pay for it. Even the intent of a dog treat is to encourage or reward behavior in a beloved pet. All of those intents cause the cook to make particular decisions regarding ingredients, preparation, presentation, and so on; the decisions' outcomes don't matter to this conversation, just the fact that they were made.
But with slop, the farmer has no intent. He just shovels it into the trough so that the pigs will shut up until they're fat enough to slaughter. (How's that for an overwrought metaphor?)
Honestly, reading back on this again, I realize that I was thinking about this like adding tomato to cream. But adding cream to tomato, a la cheese on chili, or tomato soup made with milk, or penne rosa? Or even tacos with cheese and salsa? Maybe this is just a framing thing, or a concentration thing.
In your defense, you were watching Love Island. That probably slows down the brain.
Is that what's ultimately important?
I think that's getting closer. I definitely interpret 'sacrifice' as suggesting one or both parties is facing an uncertain, likely or guaranteed negative opportunity cost but chooses to engage anyways. One of the ways I show care is trying to ensure that is never knowingly the case and as many unknowns are disclosed beforehand. Informed consent and all that.
I hear what you're saying, but it feels to me like a very competitive zero-sum game perspective that can be true sometimes but is an exception rather than a universal. I'm trying to figure out if there is a root universal there that I'm just not seeing. Any ideas?
I do not see how that is remotely true in either of our frameworks/perspectives. Reduced opportunity cost absolutely, but certainly not zero and different uses will have different costs associated.
Anything someone touches puts some amount of themselves in it. It's a big issue in science, law, testing, validation and politics is that people are unable to not put themselves into their work.
I would agree that AI dilutes and transforms that personal touch and often replaced it with something that has a bit more mass market appeal, but I can't think of any medium that isn't true for. I would agree the magnitude of that transformation is fairly unprecedented though. However, I would argue that it would be a lot more valuable if it was capable of living up to that claim.
That does however start to get into the very philosophical and largely unknowable weeds of 'is there such a thing as perfect information or does everything contain bias and when can that bias be considered negligible'?
It is a homomorphism of them. Unrecognizable due to it's transformation into mass-market/slop-space but I don't think that guarantees any specific direction of transformation on the value.
One of the most problematic issues with AI slop I see is that it allows for the transformation of things that should objectively be disposed of due to being intrinsically harmful into something with marginal value that is then mass-marketed.
Value is largely subjective. Slop is generally valued as a feedstock. There is a wide range of qualities of slop. I do not understand where your insistance that slop universally has no value is coming from other than your own personal value judgements.
Agreed ^_^
Yes, and I'm doing so with the belief this is the most valuable use of my time at the moment for myself and those involved. For me the meaningfullness isn't derived from what else is/isn't on that list and the 'sacrifices' made but from a largely subconscious cost/benefit analysis.
You're meaningful because you exist, not because I'm neglecting my job to talk with you :P
But why? The point of a flight is to get your physical body from X to Y.
If you're spamming flights for the sake of A/B testing I would agree that is slop, but that's not unique to AI and this exact hypothetical is often done with human agents for the sake of identifying the best options for ~~V~~IPs
Do the agents clog up seats that impede with the ability of the airline to achieve it's purpose of transportation from X to Y? Yes! Is that an inherently negative thing? I don't think so, but I'm hoping you can convince me otherwise.
Fair. And I would believe mine does give it a more negative connotation than it justly deserves.
I feel like effort was closer. Slop absolutely has 'intent', however those intentions often get transformed in a non-deterministic way, or simply don't translate to the medium. That's true of any artistic process though, IE Bob Ross sort of 'mistakes become happy little trees'.
Someone who is a master of their craft with good/reliable tools is better able to translate their intent to medium. Often with less effort and shorter time spent. I think the issue comes from conflating the master and his tools, and in the case of AI assuming the tool has no master.
I understand and partially agree with the perspective that AI, and 'the algorithms' in general, are largely independent stochastic processes but I don't think that changes that they are tools with owners who are controlling/manufacturing them.
I also do see the man in the middle vulnerability within that transformation that you might be pointing at but I don't think that is encapsulated by either 'effort' nor 'intent' either.
It doesn't sound ridiculous to me. Being succinct is a valuable skill that often takes time and sometimes the best way to communicate is via short-form. I don't think I can say for certain that text was any more valuable for having deliberated for hours but it does shape my perception to believe it to be a more thoughtful succinctness instead of a lazy one. Is that part of the misalignment between us? A focus on the 'packaging' vs. 'product'?
Phrasing it as effort/intent/choice/sacrifice doesn't feel any closer to me. Invested maybe? Has some negative connotations for me but feels like that's maybe a direction worth exploring?
I do agree that it's kind of the modern version of patronage but I don't follow the value judgement/framework to understand how/why you label anything there as 'good'. It objectively is but I think there is just as much value in the 'bad' as the 'good', for that example especially.
'Chiobani funding a team that knowingly and deliberately engaged in blatant green-washing which became a cultural meme that lead to their own downfall along with an era of plenty, community restoration and deliberate ecological restoration' certainly has strong historical echoes and does seem like an objectively good outcome but I don't think Chiobani nor most of the designers get the credit for that outcome as that wasn't their intent/goal/focus.
Lol, it's been so long I've forgotten the order of things!
Another beautiful phrase!
We've definitely danced around them... I use Arch by the way :P (Not usually actually, I'm too lazy. But it is great for old, weird, or custom hardware if you've got time and energy to spare.)
Everything I've seen on mutational semantics applied to any sort of living human language does suggest that all words anybody uses are almost guaranteed to have variations in definition. Usually slight unless two populations that had been previously isolated start communicating again. Thankfully that never happens, and certainly not on the modern Internet!
(Part 1)
Strongly agree!
Strongly disagree!
The farmer absolutely has an intent! Which I 'highlighted'. The problem isn't lack of intent, it's that the intent exists and it's dark. However, I think this might help with explaining why I call Kurzkesagt slop though.
Their self described intent is to "spark curiosity in people about science, humanity and our future" using "vibrant and striking vector illustrations". Which seems like a good intent on the surface. "Farmer wants to make sure his pigs are (intellectually???) fat and happy!"
The problem comes from what they call "lies for children". A principle that is important because children can not 'digest' complex ideas, or foods, in the same way as adults. Which is the point of baby food!
The problem arises because Kurzkesagt doesn't proport to have an "intended audience" and it's probably not suited for young children due to the sheer number of bird corpses despite the lies they tell catering specifically to that demographic. Their actual demographic data^1^ shows it skews 18-34 and male which could be primarily dads playing it for their kids but I would suspect that's their true demographic with the true <18 audience being pretty evenly distributed up to the ~54 range.
The intent is to "spark curious" but the reality looks to be a bunch of young-middle age adults slurping on intellectual baby food and lacking the curiousity to move beyond that. If that isn't slop I don't know what is.
Yeah probably. Chili with a good queso mixed in is delicious! Calling it 'bean slop with leftover nacho toppings' does make it significantly less appetizing.
Yep! ...and now I need your help designing a test.
Love Island is clearly functional brainrot. Fruit Love Island is more stereotypical brainrot. But is it more, less, or equal functional brainrot? Designing the test ensures you can't be selected to participate.
^1 it does need to be said that demographic data is suspect as hell, but it's the only thing I could find and does seem to line up vaguely with other sources, if you find something better please share!^
You're going to have to provide examples that substantiate your opinion
As it stands, you just call them slop with no reason
By their own admission? "Lies to children" is just a variation of "slop for babies".
Or if you prefer pulling from Wikipedia's sources.
It's been years and I don't care to re-watch for the specific arguments but going through the list ones that I vaguely recall being not just "lies for children" but contained blatant, lack of better term, capitalist propaganda: Loneliness, Is meat bad for you, Overpopulation, marijuana, Geo engineering, whos to blame for climate change, UBI, banking explained.
I also recall a few especially bad ones on syria, the immigrant crisis, addiction and homelessness but those don't seem to be up anymore. You may be right that I am being overly harsh based on old history. Hopefully one they are trying to fix and not just whitewash.