this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
263 points (88.8% liked)
Technology
87900 readers
4144 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
Is nobody exasperatedly tired of comments calling anything remotely related to AI 'slop??'
Yes.
Lemmy is just by default super AI-hating. I wonder what they felt when Linus Torvalds said that LLM are actually useful tools.
We felt like he's right about it being useful tools but the ethical aspects are hard to ignore. Yes, many ethical aspects.
You're likely conflating the tools with the implementation or the implementers. An open source model on local hardware has next to zero ethical concerns.
There are MANY ethical concerns about the actions of the big players in AI, their data centers, and to some extent, the original, bootstrapped training data sourcing.
Well, yes and no. Even open source models had to consume a lot of power for the training, including the use of non-owned data
I don't think so, no?
Note a key point of contention is how the training data is used and whether it is effectively discarding copyright. If you invested time making an open source project to do something people appreciate and you get attribution as a result, you may be unhappy that a model trained on your stuff can let a user prompt up an embedded implementation of what your project does without any attribution.
This pretty much applies to all models. No one limited training data to explicitly public domain stuff.
You might not appreciate it, but if it's posted online then it's no different from someone else learning to code from reading the project. It's not making copies of the code, it's just strengthening the weights on a neural network. Sure, if the code is so obscure that nothing else is like it then it's possible to get the model to regurgitate some of it due to having so few relevant sources, but it's very unlikely to be comprehensive enough that it's violating any copyright. If a court finds that to be the case, for some fictitious example, then I'm certain they can find an agreeable resolution to the isolated case.
However, none of that is justification for just writing off the technology entirely. Pandora's Box has been opened. The genie isn't going back in the bottle. You can't close the barn door, all the cows already escaped. What do you think boycotting it will accomplish? What exactly is the goal by figuratively sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending the models don't exist?
I have seen this argument before and it doesn't make sense even in theory.
I used to work at a company that did open source work and also proprietary work with third party closed source code. The company didn't let anyone who had seen proprietary code contribute to open source, because they felt once a person 'learned' from a proprietary codebase, then it's too risky if similar looking code lands in a project.
Imagine if someone saw the source code for Excel. Then sometime later they notice that Calc didn't have a feature that Excel did, and contributed an implementation of the feature. Even if they hadn't been looking directly at the Excel source code in the moment of implementation, you think Microsoft would be so "understanding" when they see someone that once worked on Excel contributing what could be construed as infringing?
The AI companies also seem to acknowledge this, as they have offerings that promise not to use your proprietary code as training fodder. If it is not a risk of infringement, then why would it matter to promise that the proprietary code is kept out of training data? Though it was short lived, why would OpenAI have even made a deal to license Disney material if it's all fair use anyway? If this sort of stuff is fair game, why do they get so pissy when other companies distill models?
Even as the AI company's have roughly defended this scenario, their defense should be a cause for concern for users. Generally they say that anything they do with things they can read is 'fair use', and when exhibits of clearly infringing outputs are given, they respond with the model only did that because the user's prompt directed it, and thus the responsibility for infringement should be with the AI user, not the engine that produced the infringing output. So the possibility of an unwitting infringement is possible as the AI companies explicitly say it's the fault of the user even if it happens.
But we come to your last point, that essentially at this point, the whole thing is 'too big to fail' and thus the practical risk is low. Which is true. It's just a bit disheartening that these companies are given free reign to interpret intellectual property law whichever way is convenient in the moment.
I don’t really care what Linus Torvalds has to say, unless it’s about the Linux kernel, and I don’t think his opinions matter outside of that. Being a great programmer doesn’t mean he’s also an intelligent, socially aware person.
He did an interview with Linus Tech Tips a few months ago, and when asked about artists being “upset about the large scale theft of work” coming from AI, he said “that’s reality, deal with it” and even went on to talk about photographers that are out of work because “you can fake pictures so much better now” while, within the same breath, saying programmers wouldn’t lose their jobs because he wants to have his cake and eat it too. (Obviously I’m paraphrasing a bit)
I do agree AI can be a useful tool, and it’s a position I’ve held since OpenAI was first starting to become recognizable. But anything that’s generated by AI is slop, and I’ll continue to call it such even if nobody else will.
The movie “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” used AI tools to place random blemishes and marks (that the artists created) on characters faces across multiple frames. I don’t really feel like finding a source for this one, but I’m sure you could fairly easily if you’re that curious. I think that’s an actual use for AI. Streamlining and speeding up the creation process to give creative people more time to do actual creative work. I don’t think asking an LLM to generate or “create” something for you is anything but slop.
Slop isn’t about quality, it’s about the morality. The, again, large scale theft of work required to get to the point of being able to generate something of a passible quality level, plus the destruction of the environment in the process. I think it’s pointless to reject AI tools entirely due to how prominent and widespread they are, but “creating” something with AI will always be slop.
Source for the LTT interview: https://youtu.be/mfv0V1SxbNA
About 33:10
I think broadly most people are less bothered by what the GenAI can do, but more bothered by what experiences are inflicted upon them by other people using the tech.
All well and good if it can so code reviews and code gen at your behest and you can evaluate and get as much as you think you can out of it, but other people are enabled to be amazingly more obnoxious about it.
"Slop" is mostly because people were inclined to do the slop level quality, but were self limited by the reality their poor ideas were roughly as hard to do as much better ideas. Now AI accelerates people that are not concerned with quality or specifics way more than it can accelerate people that care about specifics and quality.
I'm conflicted about it too. But there is a useful software development tool in there. Its a beige mind good at regurgitating cookie-cutter work. Its pretty good at scaffold and cookie cutter unit tests.
I hate how it makes my colleages behave, but I can totally see the legitimate $500M/yr industry worth of software in there, under all the BS.
There's a Jetbrains or Atlassian size companies worth of product here.
Many people are incapable of nuance.
I think it has some use cases, but it’s like religion: Don’t cram it down my throat, keep it to yourself, and I don’t mind it if it’s on my terms.
Totally get what you mean and I can fully respect that stance. In recent times, it was more like a “let’s bash all the people who think slightly positive about AI”, so kind of the same indoctrination, just the other way around.
It has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Are you blind? It’s the exact same bland, AI regurgitated writing style as every other AI written article.
Truly, it does not read like it was written using an LLM to me. Maybe you're expecting it to, so that's what you see?
“It’s not blah. It’s blah.”, “it’s genuinely ”. I can go on. As soon as you see it once you see it everywhere. When every article reads the exact same way it’s horrendous, it’s tiring, it’s the end of the internet. It’s all bots now.
You've got a long future ahead of you...
No.
Ah, you got me. I copied the double negative of the original comment. You're right, the replies here show there are indeed very many people annoyed by the 'slop' comments.