Talk:AI slop

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Artificial Intelligence

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Computer graphics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

On 3 December 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Slop (artificial intelligence) to AI slop. The result of the discussion was moved.

Suggestion for further reading section.

New York published the article Drowning in Slop (25 September 2024), which may be suitable for the "further reading" section.

FWIW, Generative artificial intelligence#Content quality also discusses AI slop. Fabrickator (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

“Shrimp Jesus” is a commonly cited example of AI slop

... that slop emerged in 2024 over “pollution”, “garbage” and “dross” as the preferred term to describe low-quality AI-generated material?

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/24/opinion/ai-annoying-future.html

Reviewed: N/a
Comment: First own DYK nomination. I like this one because a lot of people contributed (images, categorizations). Feels very fresh.

Created by Jenny8lee (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Jenny8lee (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:

Image eligibility:

Freely licensed:
Used in article:
Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Welcome to DYK Jenny8lee, I hope you have a wonderful time here, and I hope I can help facilitate your entry the best I can! Created and nominated within a week, long enough, sourced and neutral. QPQ not required because of the nominator being below 5 nominations. I have some questions regarding the hook, since the original article's wording was as such:
"One increasingly intuitive answer is “garbage.” The neuroscientist Erik Hoel has called it “A.I. pollution,” and the physicist Anthony Aguirre “something like noise” and “A.I.-generated dross.”"
It seems like these terms were used by one or two people, rather than being in use beyond those individuals quoted within the article. I believe it might be a good idea to re-word the hook(something along the lines of "AI slop has been referred to as "garbage", "pollution", and "dross"), or find something else altogether. The quotes within the lead of the article should be attributed to their sources as well. In addition, I'm not entirely sure whether the AI generated image is free (regarding the copyright of a derivative work, this is a fairly new policy as well). I'm going to ping @Theleekycauldron: to see what they think regarding the matter. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ornithoptera: I think I'd go further than you to say that the Times source doesn't even verify that "slop" is the preeminent term! Since all AI imagery is considered public domain by Commons, public domain derivatives are a-okay. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ornithoptera: Thanks for the feedback. How do I change the hook once it has been submitted? Jenny8lee (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenny8lee: To propose a new hook, start a new line with ALT1 (in bold) below, then put the text of the hook next to it. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 that thousands of people showed up in Dublin, Ireland for a non-existent Halloween parade due to an article on an AI-produced website in what became a viral example of AI slop in the physical world.

Source 1: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dublin-fake-halloween-parade-ireland-ai-advert-b2639505.html Source 2: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/24/opinion/ai-annoying-future.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny8lee (talk • contribs)

Per WP:DYKTRIM, I suggest ALT1a: ... that a viral example of slop prompted thousands of people to visit Dublin for a non-existent Halloween parade?--Laun chba ller 13:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenny8lee and Theleekycauldron: Went to tick off ALT1a (since it's a derivative of Jenny's ALT1 with no additional information); however, I noticed that only one of the references actually uses the word 'slop'. And having read the article, the vast majority of this shouldn't be in this article. Most of this deserves to be in the artificial intelligence art article.--Laun chba ller 14:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenny8lee: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 December 2024 (old)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn for renaming Distantstarglow (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slop (artificial intelligence) → AI Slop – When the term "slop" is used to refer to low-quality AI content it usually is called "AI Slop". Most of the sources this page cites follow this naming convention. Searching for "slop" on the aggregator Google News and Hacker News also show this pattern. I'd estimate 80% of the usage of the term in online circles is "AI Slop", 10% call it "slop" but mention "AI" later in the sentence (in cases like headlines), and 10% just say "slop".

"Slop" is occasionally used to reference any low-effort, low-quality, and repetitive content, including YouTube videos ("YouTube Slop"), video games ("Live Service Slop" / "AAA Slop"), and streaming videos ("slop media"). In these cases it's similar to the term "brain rot", though the term "slop" seems to be more focused on the quality of the content where "brain rot" is more focused on its psychological impact. Distantstarglow (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its a generic title so should be AI slop if moved though I assume the "I" should be capitalized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, edited the request Distantstarglow (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are many other things called "slop". KOLANO12 3 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 3 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus to move. "AI slop" is a WP:NATDAB and the WP:COMMONNAME (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slop (artificial intelligence) → AI slop – (New move request reopened to fix capitalization from "AI Slop" to "AI slop")

When the term "slop" is used to refer to low-quality AI content it usually is called "AI slop". Most of the sources this page cites follow this naming convention. Searching for "slop" on the aggregator Google News and Hacker News also show this pattern. I'd estimate 80% of the usage of the term in online circles is "AI slop", 10% call it "slop" but mention "AI" later in the sentence (in cases like headlines), and 10% just say "slop".

"Slop" is occasionally used to reference any low-effort, low-quality, and repetitive content, including YouTube videos ("YouTube slop"), video games ("live service slop" / "AAA slop"), and streaming videos ("slop media"). In these cases it's similar to the term "brain rot", though the term "slop" seems to be more focused on the quality of the content where "brain rot" is more focused on its psychological impact. Distantstarglow (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support "AI slop" seems the most natural title given disambiguation is required (WP:NATURAL). Preimage (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Kolano123 since they had !voted in the previous quickly withdrawn RM. Skynxnex (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Preimage. KOLANO12 3 22:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Mostly because I feel this article is a complete WP:OVERLAP with Artificial intelligence art#Impact and should be merged immediately. Not everything needs a spinout and this page is arguably against WP:NOTNEO (Most sources use the term but don't discuss the term directly). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artificial intelligence art currently restricts itself to "visual artwork" (albeit that could change). The term "AI slop" also covers non-artistic uses, e.g. Google Gemini AI overviews at the top of search results pages (https://web.archive.org/web/20241202203847/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/style/ai-search-slop.html). I agree the current version of the page seems overly focused on image/video slop, but that's a content issue that should probably be handled separately. Preimage (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might support a move to a less POV title, like AI spam or AI-generated spam. See WP:POVNAMING. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Oppose a quick skim seems to show that sources used "Slop" and "AI Slop" about equally, with maybe a slight preference to "Slop" on it's own. The argument that the nom advances, that other media is commonly called slop seems unimportant, as the cites there are to generally unreliable sources."Slop" on its own describing just low quality AI spam was also the way it was defined by Oxford on their word of the year shortlist, and the various reactions to that. On the other, hand I do see WP:NATURALDAB is an argument.

I would oppose any merge as the concept of effectively AI spam seems generally well covered. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 08:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switching from weak oppose to fully opposed. The more supports come in the weaker I'm finding the the argument to move. The page is already disambiguated sufficiently and nobody seems to be engaging with whether and how reliable sources use the term.Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the rename to AI slop - Use of the term "slop" to reference low-quality media, particularly music^[1], appears to predate modern AI. This article is specific to AI-generated media, so, per WP:NATDAB the more specific name is preferable.

Oppose merger with AI art because that article describes visual art only, and AI slop includes music, advertisements, political pamphlets, and whatever Willy's Chocolate Experience was. Lwneal (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the rename to AI slop, per Distantstarglow, Preimage and Lwneal. Regardless if sources use the terms interchangeably, one rarely hears regular people refer to this media as just "slop". As Distantstarglow and Lwneal say, "slop" as a pejorative is used well outside AI. 109.78.8.13 (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as our naming guidelines (like many other things on Wikipedia) are primarily based on what reliable sources use, it does in fact matter whether they prefer one formulation over the other. The fact that slop is also used (not by reliable sources mind you) for other media is beside the point because this page is already disambiguated to only be about the uses related to AI. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite the point of UCRN, and I've always had issues with Wikipedia's credentialism. I feel naming should reflect what people actually say. That was a (poorly delineated) side note anyway; the title already has to be disambiguated as others - and yourself - have mentioned, thus AI slop is arguably preferable to Slop (artificial intelligence) per those same naming guidelines. I didn't feel the need to reiterate the same arguments as those I listed. But this is off-topic, and I feel you're only saying this because you assume I'm new to Wikipedia. (Not an unreasonable assumption!) 109.78.8.13 (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a sentence of a !vote with something like Regardless if sources [...], is liable to make people think you aren't aware of most of the key WP:PAGs, yes. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/slop

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] ttps://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/slop

[1]