That's like inhaling a virus to see if it's contagious. Reading text generated by a model tuned with RLHF is a dangerous pastime. It's all too easy to reach past a human's critical thinking and push the pleasure buttons. Uncanny valley is uncanny for a reason. As social monkeys we instinctively screech danger warnings at each other; AI slop gets the same treatment as an alligator pretending to be a log.
Saying that something is thought terminating is thought terminating, it's the laziest "I win" bullshit approach ever. A more nuanced approach: don't produce slop and people won't dismiss it as lazy bullshit either.
No, that's not true at all. Thought-terminating cliches cause you to stop thinking; they give a quick shortcut that let's you be dismissive. That's what "AI slop" is, when someone bestows the moniker on a piece of prose that has "It's not this, it's that" in it.
Look, there's is a wide variety of work being produced with AI, all the way from exceptional professional work to total trash done by amateurs. Painting all over those efforts with the same brush of "AI slop" attempts to avoid the thought necessary to process the nuance in each individual situation. In fact, folks that use "AI slop" enjoy being able to dismiss AI output as quickly as possible; they seem to be quite happy to forgo whatever insights might be present in such work. But let's not for a moment pretend it's not a crappy heuristic.
Through this lens, dunking on a piece of prose because it has some trace of LLM processing seems both useless and uninsightful, which is why I'm rallying against it as thought-terminating. Do the thinking to determine whether what you're reading is valid. Saying that it has tells that an LLM might have contributed is not sufficient evidence to do that, and it's also something anyone can do, it requires no skill or insight, and makes for boring discussion. Zero curiousity, 100% dismissive.
Yes, it’s dismissive, intentionally and abrasively so. Because the author is being disrespectful to the reader, expecting them to put more effort into it than they did. I will happily be uncurious about a text the author couldn't even bother to proofread and clean up. Life is finite, LLMs could generate more text than I could ever possibly read, there has to be a quality filter we all apply and I’ve drawn my line in the sand.
You’re arguing in favor of what I view as pollution. I’m not lacking thought, it didn’t terminate, you just value slop for reasons I don’t.