4 ms·

This is a good term for a genuine thing but it's also cliche to say already and sounds ignorant and dismissive of the technology. I hear it most from people tha

This is a good term for a genuine thing but it's also cliche to say already and sounds ignorant and dismissive of the technology. I hear it most from people that I've observed aren't aware of how to write effective prompts or how to wield it yet. If you don't want "slop" then write the prompt to not generate it. Heck write a second prompt to clean up the slop of the last one if you're just starting out.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
I don't think we're ever going to (or at least, not in my lifetime) get across the issue of an LLM does not think, it does not intend, it does not possess the ability to have intention, and therefore by definition, everything it creates is without intention. AI slop feels like AI slop because, by definition, it is an average work. It is mathematical analysis and statistical representation of what an average written work is following the guide of what was requested of it. So no AI content can ever be great, or fantastic, it can only be average.
- nprateem 2y ago
  But you're blaming the AI for writing this 'slop'. That implies if you couldn't tell it was written by AI that same piece would be fine. I have actually had AI write pretty great content, in a tone far away from it's usual "In the fast moving world of..." bollocks. I just needed to give it decent directions to avoid averageness. I think your complaints will fade as models get better at breaking away at formulaic writing, provided people don't use them lazily. Garbage in, garbage out, etc.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    > That implies if you couldn't tell it was written by AI that same piece would be fine. No, not at all. Humans turned out all kinds of mediocre and bland writing too. I wouldn't want to read the office memo on keeping the fridges clean as an exercise either. Even before the rise of LLM, we've had hundreds, probably thousands, maybe millions of link farm sites that are just endless bland meh content stuffed full of hyperlinks to increase SEO scores on other websites, and humans wrote all that shit too. What LLM brings to the party that's new is it drastically lowers the cost of creating that type of crap. Like, there's a baseline cost to having a human or you yourself generating a link-sites worth of garbage. An LLM can do that in an afternoon, for the cost of some tokens or even just the cost of electricity if you run it locally. That means there's more mediocre garbage now than there ever was, and even respectable publications are looking to fill the gaps in their schedules with LLM generated trash. I think when people are complaining about "there's AI slop now" that would be better stated as "there is so much MORE slop content now," and the fact that a huge amount of it sounds the same because it's generated by the same models in use by different places, is why it signals very strongly as AI. > I have actually had AI write pretty great content, in a tone far away from it's usual "In the fast moving world of..." bollocks. I just needed to give it decent directions to avoid averageness. Show me some, I'm genuinely curious if it still sounds the same to me. That said, it's also worth noting: you put in effort to make the LLM make text that didn't read like LLM text, and I keep repeating this point where I discuss this but: these technologies are being developed directly to be appealing to people who don't wanna put in the effort. And maybe you could argue well learning how to prompt LLMs correctly so they make better stuff isn't nearly as hard as learning to write better yourself or paint better or whatever, and that's probably true at least to some degree? But again: these tools are made for and are marketed heavily towards people who don't want to put in the work to learn skills, and I can't imagine for most of them that prompt engineering will be so much more appealing than learning to write in order to change that.
    - nprateem 2y ago
      Yeah totally. And it did take a stupid amount of effort to make it produce stuff that didn't sound like crap, actually had some substance to it, etc. But most people won't bother, for sure.
- dTal 2y ago
  What is the philosophical distinction between having "intention", and being a perfect behavioral simulation of something with intention? An LLM "merely" predicts the next token, but we do not interact directly with LLMs - we interact with carefully constructed characters which the LLM simulates. These characters can certainly have intention. Similarly, I think it's a mistake to say that "the output can only ever be average". Clearly that's not the case - ChatGPT already writes and answers questions to a well above average standard. The insight is that you can tailor the distribution from which your "average" is taken. Average what? Average web page? Average HN comment? Average essay by a once-in-century deep thinker? Crudely speaking, that is what "prompting" is all about. If all you ever got was "the average text", then you would have no control at all.
scarface_74 2y ago
AI generated writing is slop just for the reasons the author said. It can never be more than average and it will never have a consistent voice like a writer would have.
- tracerbulletx 2y ago
  Not true at all, you can get llms to write in any tone and style you want and in a way you would not notice as AI slop. Literally just by fine tuning it or providing an example. Consumer products can't because they are intentionally driven to be un-controversial.
- danielbln 2y ago
  This was the first LLM written piece of fiction that made me go "oh, this is actually not bad.." https://bsky.app/profile/talyarkoni.com/post/3ldfjm37u2s2x https://bsky.app/profile/talyarkoni.com/post/3ldfjm37u2s2x
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> If you don't want "slop" then write the prompt to not generate it It's still almost-always obviously AI generated. If not in style in the way the logic flows. AI has a place in the creative process. And it's perfect for filling content. (A lot of communications, including by important people, is content filling.) But if you're writing to persuade or explain, an AI finish undercuts the "writer's" bona fides. (Unless they're making a point about AI.)

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

I don't think we're ever going to (or at least, not in my lifetime) get across the issue of an LLM does not think, it does not intend, it does not possess the ability to have intention, and therefore by definition, everything it creates is without intention. AI slop feels like AI slop because, by definition, it is an average work. It is mathematical analysis and statistical representation of what an average written work is following the guide of what was requested of it. So no AI content can ever be great, or fantastic, it can only be average.

nprateem 2y ago
But you're blaming the AI for writing this 'slop'. That implies if you couldn't tell it was written by AI that same piece would be fine. I have actually had AI write pretty great content, in a tone far away from it's usual "In the fast moving world of..." bollocks. I just needed to give it decent directions to avoid averageness. I think your complaints will fade as models get better at breaking away at formulaic writing, provided people don't use them lazily. Garbage in, garbage out, etc.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  > That implies if you couldn't tell it was written by AI that same piece would be fine. No, not at all. Humans turned out all kinds of mediocre and bland writing too. I wouldn't want to read the office memo on keeping the fridges clean as an exercise either. Even before the rise of LLM, we've had hundreds, probably thousands, maybe millions of link farm sites that are just endless bland meh content stuffed full of hyperlinks to increase SEO scores on other websites, and humans wrote all that shit too. What LLM brings to the party that's new is it drastically lowers the cost of creating that type of crap. Like, there's a baseline cost to having a human or you yourself generating a link-sites worth of garbage. An LLM can do that in an afternoon, for the cost of some tokens or even just the cost of electricity if you run it locally. That means there's more mediocre garbage now than there ever was, and even respectable publications are looking to fill the gaps in their schedules with LLM generated trash. I think when people are complaining about "there's AI slop now" that would be better stated as "there is so much MORE slop content now," and the fact that a huge amount of it sounds the same because it's generated by the same models in use by different places, is why it signals very strongly as AI. > I have actually had AI write pretty great content, in a tone far away from it's usual "In the fast moving world of..." bollocks. I just needed to give it decent directions to avoid averageness. Show me some, I'm genuinely curious if it still sounds the same to me. That said, it's also worth noting: you put in effort to make the LLM make text that didn't read like LLM text, and I keep repeating this point where I discuss this but: these technologies are being developed directly to be appealing to people who don't wanna put in the effort. And maybe you could argue well learning how to prompt LLMs correctly so they make better stuff isn't nearly as hard as learning to write better yourself or paint better or whatever, and that's probably true at least to some degree? But again: these tools are made for and are marketed heavily towards people who don't want to put in the work to learn skills, and I can't imagine for most of them that prompt engineering will be so much more appealing than learning to write in order to change that.
  - nprateem 2y ago
    Yeah totally. And it did take a stupid amount of effort to make it produce stuff that didn't sound like crap, actually had some substance to it, etc. But most people won't bother, for sure.
dTal 2y ago
What is the philosophical distinction between having "intention", and being a perfect behavioral simulation of something with intention? An LLM "merely" predicts the next token, but we do not interact directly with LLMs - we interact with carefully constructed characters which the LLM simulates. These characters can certainly have intention. Similarly, I think it's a mistake to say that "the output can only ever be average". Clearly that's not the case - ChatGPT already writes and answers questions to a well above average standard. The insight is that you can tailor the distribution from which your "average" is taken. Average what? Average web page? Average HN comment? Average essay by a once-in-century deep thinker? Crudely speaking, that is what "prompting" is all about. If all you ever got was "the average text", then you would have no control at all.

scarface_74 2y ago

AI generated writing is slop just for the reasons the author said. It can never be more than average and it will never have a consistent voice like a writer would have.

tracerbulletx 2y ago
Not true at all, you can get llms to write in any tone and style you want and in a way you would not notice as AI slop. Literally just by fine tuning it or providing an example. Consumer products can't because they are intentionally driven to be un-controversial.
danielbln 2y ago
This was the first LLM written piece of fiction that made me go "oh, this is actually not bad.." https://bsky.app/profile/talyarkoni.com/post/3ldfjm37u2s2x https://bsky.app/profile/talyarkoni.com/post/3ldfjm37u2s2x

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> If you don't want "slop" then write the prompt to not generate it It's still almost-always obviously AI generated. If not in style in the way the logic flows. AI has a place in the creative process. And it's perfect for filling content. (A lot of communications, including by important people, is content filling.) But if you're writing to persuade or explain, an AI finish undercuts the "writer's" bona fides. (Unless they're making a point about AI.)