It sounds like they are OK with people using the tool, but he wants them to be mindful of how its being used.
But if you’re my colleague and we’re in a Slack discussion and you post a wall of Claude output, then I’m afraid I received a different message than you intended.
The same is true for people’s newsletters and social content. It’s your name on it; are you proud of the prose and weird AI-isms sprinkled throughout it? If so, great. But I can ask Claude directly if I wanted to.
TLDR: Take responsibility for what you send to people, and don’t just ask a chatbot and blindly share the output
I really don‘t think the term AI;DR is as narrow as the author makes it to be because a simple Tl;Dr would suffice here. I don‘t think they actually get that AI is the whole problem and not really how you use it. Because if you curate slop to the point it doesn‘t resemble slop anymore then you could‘ve just written it yourself and probably save yourself some time.
Part of the problem being that AI transforms people with low communication practice into wall-of-text producers and now the cost is on the readers to spend the time and energy filtering the AI-generated and reviewed and proofread stuff from the AI-generated and straight out the door stuff.
The simplest solution for this is to just refuse to consume AI-generated text. It’s no real loss since if one wants the AI answer, one can just ask the AI themselves.
Yes, there are certain situations in which we should expect 100% AI-generated copy. Customer support would be a perfect example. We’re not looking for artisanal “did you make sure to reset your phone” style dialogue.
“I have this bullshit machine that vomits out content I have to change to make it presentable to colleagues but fuck the users, they get the slop.”
It makes sense that if you can’t be bothered to write it, then I can’t be bothered to read it.
Also, the term “AI slop” puts the blame on a machine instead of the lazy human who doesn’t give a shit and can’t be bothered to so much as proofread a machine’s output based on their half-assed input before subjecting other humans to it and wasting their time.
Also, the term “AI slop” puts the blame on a machine instead of the lazy human
I never got that impression. Slop is just the default output quality, absent quality control to pick out or refine anything valuable from it. The blame absolutely still lies with the person serving crude and pretending it’s gas.
Look, I get it. It’s Q3 2026, and we should expect that everyone is utilizing AI at SOME point in their process (sourcing ideas, creating outlines, refining prose, etc.).
Is the author really an AI shill and completely missing the point they are writing about or is this a joke?
It sounds like they are OK with people using the tool, but he wants them to be mindful of how its being used.
TLDR: Take responsibility for what you send to people, and don’t just ask a chatbot and blindly share the output
I really don‘t think the term AI;DR is as narrow as the author makes it to be because a simple Tl;Dr would suffice here. I don‘t think they actually get that AI is the whole problem and not really how you use it. Because if you curate slop to the point it doesn‘t resemble slop anymore then you could‘ve just written it yourself and probably save yourself some time.
That is just basic communication practice, like proofreading an email before sending.
Part of the problem being that AI transforms people with low communication practice into wall-of-text producers and now the cost is on the readers to spend the time and energy filtering the AI-generated and reviewed and proofread stuff from the AI-generated and straight out the door stuff.
The simplest solution for this is to just refuse to consume AI-generated text. It’s no real loss since if one wants the AI answer, one can just ask the AI themselves.
Yeah they missed the point completely. It‘s also not a solution to anything but simple mockery.
I laughed out loud at this bit:
“I have this bullshit machine that vomits out content I have to change to make it presentable to colleagues but fuck the users, they get the slop.”
If I’m calling support, we’re already way past that already anyway. Yes, I’ll need to talk to an actual human expert who can figure this out.
It makes sense that if you can’t be bothered to write it, then I can’t be bothered to read it.
Also, the term “AI slop” puts the blame on a machine instead of the lazy human who doesn’t give a shit and can’t be bothered to so much as proofread a machine’s output based on their half-assed input before subjecting other humans to it and wasting their time.
I never got that impression. Slop is just the default output quality, absent quality control to pick out or refine anything valuable from it. The blame absolutely still lies with the person serving crude and pretending it’s gas.
Should we?
[deleted]