← Back to context

Comment by joenot443

5 hours ago

This is slop too though, right?

> Pasting a massive AI-generated response into a chat or email where a human would write one sentence. It destroys the medium itself. Nobody writes essays in Slack. It's only possible because of AI copy-paste.

> It's like calling someone and asking "What time is the meeting?" and they read you a 10-page analysis of calendar management best practices. You asked a simple question. They lobbed a document.

It’s hard to take the site seriously if the author themself isn’t able to write

I found the writing clear, concise, and human.

  • It's certainly concise but I still remain unconvinced a human wrote it.

    > It's a weapon disguised as helpfulness.

    The source code is without a doubt AI (it's got a comment for the "<!-- Canonical URL -->"), so I guess one would have to assume they prepared the entire document beforehand, then fed it to Claude and instructed it to use that copy exactly.

    ...or they prompted "make me a site which tersely criticizes people who post AI slop on Slack, use the term slop grenade and style the site like nohello.net"

    Eventually you just get a sense for these things.

What makes you think this is AI slop?...

  • > You asked a simple question. They lobbed a document.

    > It's a weapon disguised as helpfulness.

    These are particular sentences I find questionable. Would you write that way? I certainly wouldn't.

    GPTZero is by no means perfect, but it agreed this was likely generated.

  • The heading " Why it's wrong" and the structure:

    >Worse: it's a conversation killer. There's nothing to respond to. Your wall of text suppresses dialogue. They can't reply, can't push back, can't clarify. It's a weapon disguised as helpfulness.

    This is slop. What it's saying is not even true, it's just punchy.

99% confident the article denouncing slop is itself slop.

Genuine AIDS. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so terrifying and didn't happen with such regularity.