Template:Did you know nominations/Slop (artificial intelligence)

Slop (artificial intelligence)

(

)

“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).

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)

@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)
@Ornithoptera: Thanks for the feedback. How do I change the hook once it has been submitted? Jenny8lee (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)