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
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!^