I was recently called a purveyor of AI SLOP, and I want to respond. I’ve always thought purveyor is one of the finer words in English, but I take issue with the recently coined: AI SLOP.
In this article, I will share my thoughts on the phrase “AI SLOP” and then offer FOUR humorous definitions of people who enjoy flinging the term “AI SLOP” around as if they are monkeys chucking feces at each other. All four definitions are AI-generated, and all from the same prompt. This is another great examination of the differences and nuances of ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Grammarly AI.
First, though, I will briefly discuss why I trust AI-generated content and use it wherever appropriate.
- My emotional/feral reaction to the phrase “AI SLOP.”
- Why I trust AI-generated content
- AI Detection is “iffy”, another reason to stop using the phrase “AI SLOP.”
- Now the fun part: Humorous Definitions of people who use the phrase “AI SLOP.”
My emotional/feral reaction to the phrase “AI SLOP.”
“AI SLOP” is so frustrating to hear or read. For me, it screams “willfully and proudly ignorant”. I generally think, “Here is a person with a strong opinion about something they likely know nothing about.”
Calling something “AI SLOP” reflexively is like a person unfamiliar with Public Enemy dismissing an entire, hugely popular 50-year-old music genre with seven capital letters: “RAP CRAP.”
Describing something as “AI SLOP” is similar to calling inconvenient news stories “FAKE NEWS.” Both phrases are used to disregard information that doesn’t fit one’s beliefs. By dismissing facts as false or worthless, the speaker avoids engaging with ideas they disagree with.
Why I trust AI-generated content
When ChatGPT first arrived on the scene, I was skeptical. Very skeptical.
But colleagues were persistent and eventually convinced me to give it a try.
It was way before I knew about prompt engineering, and come to think of it, I don’t think the term “prompt engineering” even existed!
My first experience with ChatGPT
When I found myself with some free time, I opened ChatGPT and entered the headlines (H2s) from a lengthy article I had recently finished.
That is decidedly NOT prompt engineering, but the results that ChatGPT produced were much in line with what I had written.
The difference was that AI completed tasks that took me a couple of days in seconds.
So, I gained trust in AI. I played, and I gained.
Being a somewhat rational person, I still verify and proofread what AI produces. And sometimes AI should not be used at all. Students should still do their own research, for example.
People are affected by AI even if they do not use it directly.
But even if students are not using AI for their homework or writing papers, their teachers are likely creating lesson plans with AI, and school boards and the administrative sides of schools are definitely using AI. The media is definitely overusing AI. I guarantee that lawmakers are using AI to sway voters and to do research on bills and laws they introduce.
This means that even if students are not using AI directly for their education, they ARE being influenced by AI as it trickles down the hierarchy.
AI Detection is “iffy”, another reason to stop using the phrase “AI SLOP.”
- Grammarly’s “AI Detector” feature is far from trustworthy. Generate some copy in Gemini or ChatGPT, copy it into Grammarly, and see what happens if you don’t believe me.
- I have friends who “hate all AI” who also love some of the AI-generated copy I have shared with them, without telling them it was AI-generated.
- And of course, there are “get rich quick” schemers trying to make a quick buck with “failproof AI detectors” that will identify AI-generated copy for “a small monthly fee.” That’s just one of countless examples of why humans are less trustworthy than AI!
Now the fun part: Humorous Definitions of people who use the phrase “AI SLOP.”
With so many people defining me, I decided to fight fire with fire and define them! And naturally, the way to do it was with AI!
So I wrote a prompt quickly, then fed it into ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and the Grammarly AI feature.
My intention was to use this endeavour as a warm-up exercise and then move on to something more substantial. The “AI SLOP” was too funny not to share, so here’s this article.
Below is the prompt and the AI responses. Enjoy!
ChatGPT 1:
Here’s a version that stays sharp, funny, and pointed without veering into outright harassment territory:
AI-Slopper (n.)
A person who reflexively uses the term “AI slop” to dismiss anything created with artificial intelligence, typically revealing more about their own limitations than about the work itself.
Characteristics often attributed to an AI-Slopper include:
- Technological Fragility: Becomes overwhelmed by the idea of typing a coherent prompt, viewing basic interface elements as if they were ancient runes.
- Creativity Vacuum: Assumes AI can only produce trash because they personally cannot imagine anything worth making.
- Default Cynicism: Responds to new tools with the same enthusiasm a medieval monk might show toward a printing press.
- Luddite Swagger: Proudly rejects emerging technology while simultaneously benefiting from dozens of hidden algorithms every day.
Usage:
“Don’t mind him — he calls everything ‘AI slop.’ If it has a button, a menu, or a spark of imagination, he’s against it.”
ChatGPT 2:
Here’s the film noir version — smoky, cynical, fedora tilted just right, describing a fictional archetype of the “AI-Slopper” in classic hardboiled style:
AI-Slopper (n.) — Film Noir Edition
They called him an AI-Slopper, the kind of two-bit mug who’d walk into a room full of geniuses and declare everything “SLOP” before he’d even bothered to read the sign on the door. A real dime-store critic with a walnut-sized imagination and a fear of technology so deep you’d need a submarine to find the bottom.
He drifted through the digital underworld like a busted typewriter — all clacks, no ink.
Profile, as understood by detectives in the know:
- Technological Lightweight: The type who stares at a prompt box the way a cat stares at a bathtub — lots of suspicion, zero comprehension.
- Creativity Flatline: I once asked him for an idea. He handed me an empty napkin and said, “This is my vision.”
- Luddite by Lifestyle: He treats progress like an unpaid debt collector — something to hide from behind half-drawn blinds.
- Fastest Dismissal in the West: You show him anything innovative, anything with a spark of originality, and he’ll squint, wrinkle his nose, and mutter “AI slop” like it’s a curse he learned from a drunk at the docks.
- Knowledge Thin as a Cheap Cigarette: Everything he knows about AI could fit on the back of a matchbook — and most of that would be misspelled.
I poured myself a drink and watched him flap his gums.
“Slop, slop, slop,” he said, over and over, like a broken jukebox playing a song nobody asked for.
And I realized something:
This guy wasn’t afraid that AI would replace him.
He was afraid it already had — and nobody noticed.
Google Gemini:
It sounds like you’re looking for a highly critical definition of a person who uses the term “AI Slop.”
Here is a definition focusing on the characteristics you mentioned:
🚫 Definition: “AI Slop” User (Critical View)
A user of the phrase “AI Slop” is often characterized as an individual exhibiting a profound technological illiteracy coupled with a deep-seated creative deficit.
- Technological Ineptitude: Their use of the term typically betrays a limited intelligence regarding modern generative tools, as they are fundamentally unable to grasp the concept of prompt engineering. They fail to progress beyond the most basic, vague inputs and thus receive low-quality, generic outputs, which they then erroneously label as “slop.”
- Creative Deficiency: The complaint is often a projection of having zero creativity. Lacking the imagination or skill to craft an effective request or iteratively refine a result, they blame the tool for their own inability to generate anything meaningful.
- Dismissive Luddism: Ultimately, they function as a dismissive Luddite, reflexively rejecting powerful new technologies out of fear, misunderstanding, or an unwillingness to adapt. They dismiss the entire field based on their own poor, unskilled results, seeking to diminish the value of a medium they cannot yet master.
Grammarly:
AI Slop Crusader (noun): A self-appointed guardian of “authentic” content who brandishes the term “AI slop” as a substitute for critical thinking. This individual possesses the unique ability to detect artificial intelligence in any work they dislike, while remaining blissfully unaware that their inability to craft a coherent prompt reflects not the technology’s limitations, but their own.
Characterized by a militant nostalgia for inefficiency and a steadfast refusal to learn basic skills that would take approximately four minutes to acquire, the AI Slop Crusader mistakes their technological illiteracy for moral superiority. They view all AI-assisted work as inherently inferior, yet curiously lack the creative capacity to produce anything superior themselves.
Often found commenting “this is obviously AI slop” on human-created work, or dismissing genuinely innovative AI-assisted projects without examination, they represent a modern Luddite—one who smashes not textile machines, but the very concept of tools evolving beyond their comfort zone. Their rallying cry of “AI slop” serves as both shield and sword: a shield protecting them from engaging meaningfully with new technology, and a sword with which to cut down others’ efforts while contributing nothing of value themselves.
See also: Keyboard warrior, armchair critic, person who still can’t figure out how to unmute themselves on Zoom calls.
Perry's Pen 
Leave a comment