I have given plenty of critical thoughts to come to the conclusion I have. You mistake my unwillingness to write a dissertation on why slop is slop for not having a well-reasoned position.
This website is full of people with a financial vested interested in never accepting that slop is slop, so there's no convincing them.
That is not what slop means, though. You're redefining the meaning of the word to suit your view. Why do that? You can just say that LLM generated content is not up to par, or acceptable, ever.
Slop means anything produced en masse with complete disregard for truth, accuracy, or usefulness. Anyone trying to say "but my slop isn't slop, I vetted it" clearly is not in possession of the necessary critical thinking skills to differentiate between slop and non-slop.
> Slop means anything produced en masse with complete disregard for truth, accuracy, or usefulness.
This doesn't match at all with what the author described in the article.
> Anyone trying to say "but my slop isn't slop, I vetted it" clearly is not in possession of the necessary critical thinking skills to differentiate between slop and non-slop.
This is called a Kafkatrap. It works in any direction, in any situation, making the disagreement moot. Also not considered good faith rhetoric.
> This doesn't match at all with what the author described in the article.
What the author describes are all the usual defenses of LLM slop, all the usual weasel words that boil down to "But I'm different and smart, my slop isn't slop."
> This is called a Kafkatrap. It works in any direction, in any situation, making the disagreement moot. Also not considered good faith rhetoric.
Applying a label to my reasoning to discredit it is also not done in good faith, and simultaneously does not make it any less true.
LLM slop is fundamentally a "what color are your bits" kind of situation. And you cannot, in any way, ship-of-theseus it away from slop.
Is it possible to tell slop from non slop if you were not there when the tokens get emitted? Somebody can just lie and pretend that they were not generated
Did you review the code in question and end up rating it slop, or are you just reflexively calling anything AI-generated slop?
Humans can produce garbage code. As can AI. So therefore the process around the code matters, and it seems clear to me the author has had a reasonable process around the code, as opposed to blindly accepting some 1-shotted output.