Using "AI slop" as feedback tells as much about the commenter as the creator. · the truth as I see it now

Written<br>13 July 2026

Tags

ai<br>work

A post I made recently saying "AI slop is a reflection on the human, not the AI" hit a nerve. There was both agreement and disagreement at the same time. Rightfully so: it was a one-sided piece.

Here is the other side.

Using "AI slop" as feedback tells as much about the person making the comment as it does about the person being reviewed.

Start with what the term even means. When I read "AI slop" under someone's work, I visualise a variety of different things.

I hear: this post was AI-generated.

I hear: this content is below my expectations, which is subjective by definition.

I hear: frustration about AI itself, which might have nothing to do with the content at all.

It can mean an infinite number of things. Only the commenter knows which one they meant. And most likely, the commenter doesn't truly know either. We can't tell from the comment alone, and that's the problem.

As the person receiving it, hardly anything is actionable. I get no feedback on the actual gist of what I said. The one action to consider is to try produce a more appeasing output, tailored to that one specific individual.

And questions like this run through my mind: is it a sin to write with AI now? On one hand we say use AI. On the other hand we say don't. Which one is it?

So here is where I land. If you use "AI slop" or a variation of it as your comment, look at what you've generated, by the very definition of the term you chose: unoriginal words, minimal effort, little value to the person receiving them. I would call this the human equivalent of AI slop - human slop. How different is it, really, from the content you're critiquing?

But to the person receiving it as feedback - it is still feedback - and all feedback is "valuable" - it just depends on how you use it. It is still one additional data point for you to consider whether you do anything different going forward.

I've had comments on my content calling it AI slop. I've also looked back at pieces I published earlier and, in retrospect, I'd label them AI slop myself.

Reflecting on those comments, I've had to properly dig into why a post of mine might be considered AI slop. And yes, there are tells. The em-dashes. The "it's not X, it's Y" sentences.

The point is: what do I do with this information?

Say you publish something, and out of everyone who saw it, one person comments "AI slop." What do you do with that? Or the other way around: every comment says "AI slop," with the exception of one person genuinely thanking you. What then?

What I don't do is read it and readjust my whole life as a result.

I use AI for everything, including writing content. I personally believe it would be stupid for me not to. I don't need to defend myself.

That said, I believe it is important to know the "why" in the first place - so my advice to anyone who's had this label applied to their own work is to ask yourself these questions.

First: what do you truly believe? What is the purpose of why you're writing, and who are you writing for in the first place?

Second: Are you satisfied with what you're about to publicly put your name towards? Is this the best representation of you at that point in time?

Third: if feedback like this arrives, do you have a way of deciding what to do with it, and whether it changes anything about what you actually believe and therefore do next?

The third point is the most critical because it is ultimately a judgement call. Everyone seems to agree that judgement will become increasingly important in the age of AI. Ironically, this is one of those moments. You decide whether "AI slop" is a signal, noise, or something in between. Nobody else can make that decision for you.

Here are my own answers.

I write with AI because it helps me achieve much more clarity of thought than without it. I can discuss points thoroughly with something of intelligence, and debate the edges of my own thinking. I arrive at a personal truth with far more clarity than if I had not done so. I can articulate myself in words at a speed I otherwise would not be able to. And I can do all of this in parallel with a series of other things that have nothing to do with publishing content. The alternative is spending all of my time writing. I have other priorities.

I am writing to an audience that perhaps agrees, or is on the edge of aligning with what I am saying, but just hasn't been able to put it into words. I am not trying to convert every crowd.

That said, I recognise that the words I actually use matter. The shape, the language, the sentence structure. The platform decides who sees my writing first. It would be stupid not to optimise for that. Then come the people: my writing is optimised for reach, and for being read to the end within the attention span people actually have. The onus is on me to continually improve at this.

These are my...