Talk:AI slop

Suggestion for further reading section.

New York published the article Drowning in Slop (25 September 2024), which may be suitable for the "further reading" section.

FWIW, Generative artificial intelligence#Content quality also discusses AI slop. Fabrickator (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
“Shrimp Jesus” is a commonly cited example of AI slop
“Shrimp Jesus” is a commonly cited example of AI slop
  • ... that slop emerged in 2024 over “pollution”, “garbage” and “dross” as the preferred term to describe low-quality AI-generated material?
  • Reviewed: N/a
  • Comment: First own DYK nomination. I like this one because a lot of people contributed (images, categorizations). Feels very fresh.
Created by Jenny8lee (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Jenny8lee (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

Image eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Welcome to DYK Jenny8lee, I hope you have a wonderful time here, and I hope I can help facilitate your entry the best I can! Created and nominated within a week, long enough, sourced and neutral. QPQ not required because of the nominator being below 5 nominations. I have some questions regarding the hook, since the original article's wording was as such:
"One increasingly intuitive answer is “garbage.” The neuroscientist Erik Hoel has called it “A.I. pollution,” and the physicist Anthony Aguirre “something like noise” and “A.I.-generated dross.”"
It seems like these terms were used by one or two people, rather than being in use beyond those individuals quoted within the article. I believe it might be a good idea to re-word the hook(something along the lines of "AI slop has been referred to as "garbage", "pollution", and "dross"), or find something else altogether. The quotes within the lead of the article should be attributed to their sources as well. In addition, I'm not entirely sure whether the AI generated image is free (regarding the copyright of a derivative work, this is a fairly new policy as well). I'm going to ping @Theleekycauldron: to see what they think regarding the matter. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT1 that thousands of people showed up in Dublin, Ireland for a non-existent Halloween parade due to an article on an AI-produced website in what became a viral example of AI slop in the physical world.

Source 1: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dublin-fake-halloween-parade-ireland-ai-advert-b2639505.html Source 2: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/24/opinion/ai-annoying-future.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny8lee (talk • contribs)

Per WP:DYKTRIM, I suggest ALT1a: ... that a viral example of slop prompted thousands of people to visit Dublin for a non-existent Halloween parade?--Launchballer 13:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenny8lee and Theleekycauldron: Went to tick off ALT1a (since it's a derivative of Jenny's ALT1 with no additional information); however, I noticed that only one of the references actually uses the word 'slop'. And having read the article, the vast majority of this shouldn't be in this article. Most of this deserves to be in the artificial intelligence art article.--Launchballer 14:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenny8lee: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 December 2024 (old)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn for renaming Distantstarglow (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slop (artificial intelligence) → AI SlopAI Slop – When the term "slop" is used to refer to low-quality AI content it usually is called "AI Slop". Most of the sources this page cites follow this naming convention. Searching for "slop" on the aggregator Google News and Hacker News also show this pattern. I'd estimate 80% of the usage of the term in online circles is "AI Slop", 10% call it "slop" but mention "AI" later in the sentence (in cases like headlines), and 10% just say "slop".

"Slop" is occasionally used to reference any low-effort, low-quality, and repetitive content, including YouTube videos ("YouTube Slop"), video games ("Live Service Slop" / "AAA Slop"), and streaming videos ("slop media"). In these cases it's similar to the term "brain rot", though the term "slop" seems to be more focused on the quality of the content where "brain rot" is more focused on its psychological impact. Distantstarglow (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 3 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus to move. "AI slop" is a WP:NATDAB and the WP:COMMONNAME (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slop (artificial intelligence) → AI slop – (New move request reopened to fix capitalization from "AI Slop" to "AI slop")

When the term "slop" is used to refer to low-quality AI content it usually is called "AI slop". Most of the sources this page cites follow this naming convention. Searching for "slop" on the aggregator Google News and Hacker News also show this pattern. I'd estimate 80% of the usage of the term in online circles is "AI slop", 10% call it "slop" but mention "AI" later in the sentence (in cases like headlines), and 10% just say "slop".

"Slop" is occasionally used to reference any low-effort, low-quality, and repetitive content, including YouTube videos ("YouTube slop"), video games ("live service slop" / "AAA slop"), and streaming videos ("slop media"). In these cases it's similar to the term "brain rot", though the term "slop" seems to be more focused on the quality of the content where "brain rot" is more focused on its psychological impact. Distantstarglow (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support "AI slop" seems the most natural title given disambiguation is required (WP:NATURAL). Preimage (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Kolano123 since they had !voted in the previous quickly withdrawn RM. Skynxnex (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Preimage. KOLANO12 3 22:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose any merge as the concept of effectively AI spam seems generally well covered. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 08:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Switching from weak oppose to fully opposed. The more supports come in the weaker I'm finding the the argument to move. The page is already disambiguated sufficiently and nobody seems to be engaging with whether and how reliable sources use the term.Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the rename to AI slop - Use of the term "slop" to reference low-quality media, particularly music[1], appears to predate modern AI. This article is specific to AI-generated media, so, per WP:NATDAB the more specific name is preferable.
Oppose merger with AI art because that article describes visual art only, and AI slop includes music, advertisements, political pamphlets, and whatever Willy's Chocolate Experience was. Lwneal (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the rename to AI slop, per Distantstarglow, Preimage and Lwneal. Regardless if sources use the terms interchangeably, one rarely hears regular people refer to this media as just "slop". As Distantstarglow and Lwneal say, "slop" as a pejorative is used well outside AI. 109.78.8.13 (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as our naming guidelines (like many other things on Wikipedia) are primarily based on what reliable sources use, it does in fact matter whether they prefer one formulation over the other. The fact that slop is also used (not by reliable sources mind you) for other media is beside the point because this page is already disambiguated to only be about the uses related to AI. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite the point of UCRN, and I've always had issues with Wikipedia's credentialism. I feel naming should reflect what people actually say. That was a (poorly delineated) side note anyway; the title already has to be disambiguated as others - and yourself - have mentioned, thus AI slop is arguably preferable to Slop (artificial intelligence) per those same naming guidelines. I didn't feel the need to reiterate the same arguments as those I listed. But this is off-topic, and I feel you're only saying this because you assume I'm new to Wikipedia. (Not an unreasonable assumption!) 109.78.8.13 (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting a sentence of a !vote with something like Regardless if sources [...], is liable to make people think you aren't aware of most of the key WP:PAGs, yes. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In film and television section

Does the heavy usage of deepfake AI in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, usage of generative AI in advertising by major companies such as Coca-cola and the usage of generative AI in Secret Invasion warrant a section on AI slop in film and television? This article refers to Dial of Destiny as slop, but that seems to be for its quality (or non-existent quality). Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two my bits.
Bit 1: AI slop implies "sloppy" quality as well...
Bit 2: ...all while AI-generated images of "slop" quality have their use in concept art department brainstorming. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit for a film and television section, but only the Coca-cola ads are still mentioned on the article. Secret Invasion and Dial of Destiny were removed due to not exactly fitting the definition of "ai slop," and most of the sources that I provided do not explicitly refer to them as slop. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add AI SEO blog posts for website engagement

It qualifies as AI SLOP and is solely used to drive engagement. 87.196.74.65 (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "[sic]"s in a prompt

>Image generated using a slop prompt designed to appeal to a US audience, from a Hindi-language seminar: "american [sic] soldier veteran holding cardboard sign that says 'today’s my birthday, please like' injured in battle veteran war american [sic] flag"

Is there a way to replace in-prompt "[sic]" instances with an out-of-promt notice? (This prompt indeed has a repeating grammatical error a lish-speaking person could inadvertedly make).

I write this, because I know a bit or two about AI prompting - it's not like AI prompts are case-sensitive. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Unwanted' in the Definition is Too Subjective and Should Be Reconsidered

The second paragraph contains this sentence quoted from a New York Times article: "shoddy or unwanted AI content in social media, art, books and, increasingly, in search results."

The word "unwanted" can be subjective, as different people may have varying reasons for rejecting AI-generated content. For instance, someone who dislikes AI on principle might consider all AI-generated content unwanted, even if it is high quality and useful to them. Likewise, unwanted does not necessarily mean low quality—some AI-generated content may be undesirable for reasons unrelated to its accuracy or overall merit.

I recommend paraphrasing the quote to better reflect an objective characterization of AI-generated content, such as "low-quality or disruptive AI-generated content in social media, art, books, and search results." This maintains the intended meaning while avoiding subjective terminology. 129.222.112.4 (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but even if its high quality ai its still unwanted. 2600:6C40:7400:3D7:63E:F004:3708:46A7 (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AI slop, n. Content that the user of the term assumes to be AI-generated, regardless of whether that is actually the case.
Study after study after study after study after study after study appears that demonstrates that humans are actually shit at distinguishing AI from human content, yet people insist that "they can always tell" – a classic example of Dunning-Kruger-like unwarranted confidence. Turns out that humans may think they are intelligent, but they're not actually that intelligent, just hallucinating their correctness, because they are sceptical towards everything but themselves. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "slop" definitionally unwanted? The sources also pretty much all use the term derogatorily or are quoting people using it negatively. Catboy69 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"In Search" and Authorship Semantics

An implicit part of the "low effort AI generated" definition of slop is a minimal, lazy amount of human authorship and intent in creating outputs. What about cases in which there is no human supervision or authorship in creating or selecting outputs? Is there a distinction of terminology between a human intentionally making low effort content via AI, versus an AI generating low quality content via indirect or no human interaction with a system? Or, whether the low quality content is generated as a summary of a low quality human-made post or decontextualized piece of human-made satire?

Example: Google search results suggest adding glue to cheese to make it stick to pizza due to an old Reddit post, and users are becoming frustrated enough with being forced to view such random suggestions as to type offensive words along with their search to disable it due to the system's automated content filtering [1]

2001:2003:F0A8:C200:1BA:56D4:84CA:206B (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Images for the advertisng and video games section

Can we include a screencap from one of Coca-Cola's AI holiday commercials or the infamous six-fingered Necroclaus loading screen from Black Ops 6, or do these fall under copyright despite being generated by AI? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's debatable. They would have some copyright protection if they were made in certain countries (UK, China, Hong Kong), or if they were built on a specific input image ("make this posed selfie look like a zombie Santa Claus") or significantly edited afterwards by a human. Unless a company has proudly said that they generated something from a prompt alone, and posted the result as-is, it's hard to be sure of the copyright status. Belbury (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is it bad that i found an ign article written in that one language that looks a lot like brazilian portuguese that could very well solve this entire issue within like 3 seconds of looking? consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 18:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
after a little more than 3 seconds of looking, i'm honestly almost convinced necroclaus alone might be worth an article, there's a good amount of info about that thing. really not in the mood to dip my sweaty, smelly, disgusting feetsies into a cod rabbit hole, though... consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 18:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing from an autotranslate how it solves anything. It's an image that's almost certainly AI, but Activision have only generally admitted using AI assets, they haven't made a statement on this particular one. We don't know if it's based on an existing image, or if the art staff did anything to the image before deploying it (is the background location from the game?). We don't know what country the person who typed the prompt was based in. Belbury (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The primary developers of Black Ops 6 are based in The United States. However, other credited studios such as Beenox (Windows edition developers) and Activision Shanghai are based in Canada and China respectively. Since I don't see the CoD case being resolved anytime soon, does the Coca-Cola one fall under fair use? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take this to the media copyright questions page. Sarsenet (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Digital Humanities, Media and Social Justice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2025 and 8 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AJBurlap (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Shemininy (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

  • "example for" should be "example of".
  • "The British computer programmer ... which he did in May 2024". This sentence doesn't make sense: there is nothing in the sentence that he "did". Perhaps "he coined the term".

2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:6428:A5A3:5FF2:63FD (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:  Done on the second edit, but I don't see "example for" in the current article text. But you are free to directly edit the article yourself, if one of us has misread that. --Belbury (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Studio Ghibli-style images, etc., "slop"? Citations needed.

An image of a migrant woman getting arrested posted by the White House's official Twitter account. The depiction of the arrest in the style of Studio Ghibli was criticized.

The lead of this article describes slop as a "derogatory term for low-quality media" created using AI. The citations reference surreal images like Shrimp Jesus: "Amputee kittens using crutches. Strawberries in the shape of lifelike frogs. Bosomy conjoined twins, structurally impossible sand sculptures, snakes swallowing fully-grown lions, airplanes with human hands. An underwater Jesus covered in shrimp.".

I previously deleted an AI image of Beethoven that, to my eyes, was a pretty good image. There was no citation from a reliable source calling it "slop" or "low quality".

The article has now been updated to include the recent Studio Ghibli-style image posted by the White House amongst a wave of other such images. From my read of them, none of the cited sources call it "slop" or criticize the quality of these AI images. In my opinion, people were posting these images because they were so good. This is a separate question from the images, especially this one, being distasteful or copyright violations.

Images included in this article should have cited reliable sources calling them "slop". Without such citations, their inclusion is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.

PK-WIKI (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about this page becoming a cruft magnet. if there is no sources calling it slop, that is original research that ought to be remove from the page -1ctinus📝🗨 13:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the sources used in this article comes from websites which are known for proudly calling any use of AI in creative works for slob regardless of quality context. We have to ask ourself how many of these images are even meaningful to illustrate the subject? Trade (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the number of images since it started to harm the readability of the article--Trade (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"inherent lack of ... purpose"

The purpose is usually SEO or advertising. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:CCFA:36FD:D5DE:467D (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a source for your claim. Blagai (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In culture: "Bombardiro Crocodilo" suggestion

Apparently, a "sloppy" idea of a crocodile B-17 bomber is a meme now. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot~ 81.89.66.133 (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you forget to mention a ad in Brazil against CP (IIRR)

a group of anti-CP or goverment?[sic] in brazil made a ad to combat child M/R/SA and improve. (if you know what that means) however, they used AI Don't go offend those dudes however i remember their number "127" which was a telephone number 2804:3690:8001:57BE:68D2:613D:14BC:CB58 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want delete myself before you ignore it 2804:3690:8001:57BE:68D2:613D:14BC:CB58 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what consarn (grave) (obituary) 17:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the term

The use of "slop" as a suffix referring to low-quality media originates from the term goyslop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40648241 95.205.117.189 (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Honestly I think that the "In Politics" section is fair and neutral. Only the right uses AI slop to peddle their talking points and thus that is why they are the only side being mentioned. Therefore, it is already fair and there should not be any dispute about this section's neutrality. EvenOvenlord17 (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False: 1 2 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.92.254.163 (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More music AI slop

"'AI slop': Emily Portman and musicians on the mystery of fraudsters releasing songs in their name" (BBC, 22 August 2025) Mapsax (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added, cheers for pointing that out Mysterizzy (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAHA Report

@FeralOink has requested an explanation of why the "MAHA report" should be included under "Politics" instead of "Science" so here's that explanation.

It is a report by "the President's Make America Healthy Again Commission", which was created by Trump in Executive Order 14212. @Einsof was correct in his description when he said that it was created by political appointees. It was not created by any scientific agency, or even "the US Dept of HH&S". Therefore, it's a political project. Paditor (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To explain it in even more detail, the report lists the committee members on page 4 and they are mostly, if not entirely, political appointees. Sometimes government agencies produce reports assembled by career civil servants or an external panel of experts; this does not appear to be one of those reports. Einsof (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this well-mannered and courteous response, rather than rancorous interactions! I meant to write H&HS Health & Human Services not "HH&S" in my edit summary. I thought this was a Federal Advisory Committee; it is actually a Presidential Commission. Given what Einsof found (that it consists of non-expert political appointees), I agree that it belongs in the Politics section, not Science.--FeralOink (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Topics in Digital Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2025 and 11 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HipsterHippo245, Snowman928, Bluelogs42 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by GrowTheCommons (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Hello everyone. Just as people have in the past, I've noticed that this article contains quite a few examples of "AI slop" even though the sources used to not describe them as AI slop. This is original research. I've just removed a few of these and moved them to a new article, AI-generated content in American politics, so that Wikipedia can have this information without it being original research. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the feedback and clarification.
We are wondering if you could give a more specific plan for us to include something like Kanye West lazily using AI to sing his songs.
The article we would like to use is from Mirror US.
Please let us know how we can be more neutral and related to slop!
~~~ ~2025-31230-12 (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Late Night with the Devil (movie)

I would say Late Night with the Devil's use of AI may not be considered as slop, but intentional.

If you have watched the movie, you could understand why it might be generated by AI - to create a sense of unease in the viewer, like it looks right but something's just a bit off.

Having watched the film from start to finish, they deform the title cards at the end, further backing up my reasoning that it may be intentional.

Nevertheless, I would suggest finding a less debated use of AI slop in film for the article. ~2025-35651-36 (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microslop

The related term Microslop may be relevant if the neologism continues to be notable more than a few days. Boud (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It has continued through to March. I started a section. There are more recent sources such as Windows Latest, but Windows Latest doesn't seem to be WP-notable. Boud (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to "Shrimp Jesus" as the primary example

Christians may find the use of "shrimp Jesus" as the primary example of AI slop to be insulting. Surely there are other more nuteral but still notable examples that could be used instead. If "shrimp Jesus" really is notable I suppose it can stay but I do not see why it needs to be right at the top. Knotrocket (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wikipedia is not censored for the the feelings of (at this stage seemingly imaginary) religious sensibilities. Personally, I find it difficult to imagine that many Christians would actually be offended by this, but all the same Shrimp Jesus is often used by sources as the example of slop, which more than justifies its inclusion. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 08:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request for sub-category "in linguistics"

Google translate now [hallucinates entire sentences] and is even throwing errors in [single word translations] (the translation should be scrotum, NOT anus). This is the epitome of AI slop and it is driving me absolutely fucking insane. How any company thinks that AI is an "improvement" is beyond me, these programmers need to get a fucking clue. ~2026-43022-3 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm highly sympathetic to this request, but I'd personally require more sourcing for a whole new subcategory and a more encyclopedic tone (of course it doesn't necessarily have to be you providing these things, but it'd be nice if it was given that you initiated the request). LieutenantZipp (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first source you gave seems to generate me a 404 error. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 14:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's an Hallucination (artificial intelligence), not AI slop. The term has basically turned into a wildcard with multiple meanings (AI artwork produced on large numbers for spam, AI artwork of low quality, AI artwork with mistakes, all and every AI artwork, etc), but here we go for the first meaning. And remember that Wikipedia is not a platform to channel your complaining, about AI or anything else. Cambalachero (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add category "In comedy"

i would like to add a comedy section that goes like this

In comedy

Popular content named Italian Brainrot has took the internet by storm, starting in 2025, the memes used AI to make combinations of objects animals, and humans, this trend has been created by @eZburger401 on the app TikTok. Characters like Tung Tung Tung Sahur is no surprise to be the most popular character in the brainrot series. Ramatrean (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my edit get viewed as vandalization

confused Thepersonthatsalive (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia! I took a look at your edit, which was The term AI " slop " presumably comes from slop ( food term ) usually used to describe animal feed. Reflecting how both are tasteless clutter litreally and metaphorically. It looks like a good faith edit to me, but I can see why it was reverted: it's not sourced. You see on Wikipedia we need everything to have a source. We can't include things that are our own opinions, even though I expect you're right that AI slop was named for animal feed, and it's kind of weird that that's not mentioned in the article. If you can find a reliable source stating that the term was inspired by the food term it would be great if you could put this in the article! I think it would be better in the section called Origins of the term instead of in the lede where you put it. You can check out Help:Referencing for beginners for info on citing sources. To actually find out whether reliable sources have said that the term AI slop comes from food slop I recommend doing a google search for words like "AI slop pig" or "AI slop food" and maybe add "origin" or "term" and then select the "News" tab once you see the searches. Look for something in a well known newspaper. Or ask here and I can see if I can find a source - this might not be the easiest thing to find a source about! Good luck and keep asking questions! Lijil (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shy Girl

My addition of the Shy Girl controversy to the article was reverted. Not all AI is slop. However, the book has been referred to as "AI slop" by readers and critics. Before I attempt to add this in, do other editors have opinions on Shy Girl's inclusion here? I'm not interested in an edit war so trying to prevent myself from making further bad edits. Dflovett (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't see the edit summary given when this was removed, it was pretty straightforward: "Not all AI use is slop; source doesn't use the term." Most anything, and particularly something you are describing as a "controversy," is going to need at the very least reliable sources that support it directly. Also, keep in mind that this article is never going to mention every single example of everything ever described as "AI slop." Asparagusstar (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the edit summary. There are many instances of Shy Girl being labeled as AI slop. I got myself mixed up and used the wrong link (I had looked at a few different articles about this) and used the Slate article when I meant to use the NYT review that includes this sentence: "Still, the tide turned as more readers began flagging what they surmised was A.I. slop, slamming the book for its generic and confusing metaphors and repetitive phrasing."
So back to my question: should I try to add it in again? Dflovett (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the source, the sentence you added was that In 2026, the novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard was pulled by its publisher, Hachette, for suspected AI use. How would we write that to demonstrate to the reader that this suspected use was a type of slop? Is it just the view of some of the readers, or have Hachette or other critics used the term?
This Wikipedia article is currently defining AI slop as "lacking in effort, quality, or meaning, and produced in high volume as clickbait", and Merriam-Webster says "produced usually in quantity". There's a danger of drifting away from that if we also include cases those where somebody (a book reader, a YouTuber, a journalist) uses "slop" as a possibly more general insult against an ugly piece of AI content. It's not clear from the quotes that I can find whether the critics of Shy Girl are alleging that Ballard quickly generated the entire book using AI, or just that passages of it show clear AI hallmarks.
The clickbait angle may be less relevant now, but rewriting the definition to say that AI slop is any AI content perceived as lazy and low-quality would seem too broad. Nearly all AI media content is lazy and low-quality! Belbury (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense! I appreciate the dialogue on this. It has been a very high-profile AI story (at least in my bubble and circles) but I don't want to force it to fit in this article, especially if it contributes to this article being so long as to come unwieldy. I'll ponder if there is a different article where it would fit better or perhaps it doesn't need to be on Wikipedia at all. Appreciate your thoughts on this! Dflovett (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really see any existing articles where the example could be usefully included. There may be enough cases to create a new article on AI-generated books - both where a book has been advertised as being written by AI, and where it has been uncovered or contested. Belbury (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye on it. Probably one of those things where it should exist eventually but might be too soon. Dflovett (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Only nearly? :) LieutenantZipp (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There might be some exceptions here or there. In theory? Haven't seen one yet personally. Although I do like some of what I'd call "metaslop" like Kyle Mooney's recent music video. Dflovett (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Overly broad scope?

Like, obviously the reaction to most (pretty much all obvious cases with the least bit of general visibility) AI stuff will be negative, but I feel we do need to have some editorial discretion between the content that does fall under the "definition" of slop vs just anything that gets described as such. It's a buzzword that gets thrown around, and while the phenomenon of enshittification via AI needs to get documented, the page currently several sections which are just unrelated examples whose only connection is that someone called them "slop". ~2026-32512-46 (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically the enshittification Wikipedia article has the same issue; it's a term with a specific technical meaning about the ecosystem of individual and business users of an online service, but which some people (and sources) use more broadly to mean "became more shit".
It may be that the definition of slop is changing, in which case we should probably split out a section on the specific use case of low quality AI content "produced in high volume" to overwhelm or exploit a platform. Belbury (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.