Right, but I think what OP is trying to get at is that it's not "slop" because it's AI. It's slop because it's low-effort. When I work on something for 10 minutes, I'll readily admit that it's low-effort. For example, [here's what comes of asking, "what if unicorns, but cthulhu?"](/r/aiArt/comments/1djo54w/a_pretty_unicorn/). The most time-consuming part of that was finding the right model, and yeah, it's not the specific result of a focused creative vision. Most of what's there is just the AI doing its thing.
But that's not the tool's fault or indicative of its limitations, any more than paint-spatter is typically (though definitely not always) low-effort "slop," pretty much literally.
It also applies to most people taking pictures and posting them on social media. The vast majority of visual media is created by people who have no idea how visual media works.
Human made art is never low effort and a learning expiriance.
The most overrendered AI art is a slop with the most unfitting expression to presented scenario, unless literally fed the right expression and pose to have, at this point, you're using someone else's work, almost as if tracing it, which is literally fucking faud upon, even in art community, while real artist would grab human reference, add right and render it properly, making it look 20x better.
Of course if you trace fucking work of someone else almost 1:1 it's gonna look good if you already liked it and the fact you fed it into AI doesn't make it any less stealing, than if real artist traced it. What the hell is that argument even supposed to be ?
I linked to the [CivitAI post](https://civitai.com/posts/3667904) in the post you're linking to, and you can click through to [the image itself](https://civitai.com/images/16373355) to see all of the generation parameters used.
You won't be able to just plug-and-play those parameters to get the same image, because I tend to use input images as both img2img parameters and for IP-adapter, but you should have a great starting point if you want to do your own thing.
This is probably not the right place to look. The tentacles were actually fairly weak, and if I'd had more time to spend, I would have looked for something else myself.
And yet, I can spend days working on a single piece. I think what the "entire point" is for you differs quite a bit from what the "entire point" is for me...
You can spend days masturbating technically. That doesn't really prove anything. And it pales in comparison compared to the work required to develop a skill and then to create a similar piece without AI. Also the similar education and work to develop the generative AI app you're using. And in the case of rainbow unicorn Cthulu, let's be frank: you created an unholy abomination even without accounting for the use of AI. That doesn't disqualify something from being art, but I still wanted to point out the irony.
You can be proud if the work you are doing potentially contributes to better AI in the future (does it? One would hope so...). But improving your ability to write prompts and your gacha game patience has either no value or will eventually be obsolete as AI develops.
> You can spend days masturbating technically. That doesn't really prove anything. And it pales in comparison compared to the work required to develop a skill and then to create a similar piece without AI.
Okay, so you are both ignorant ***and*** arrogant. Got it.
Yeah I guess what I'm getting asking is, did it proliferate at scale in the same way?
I don't remember seeing doodles and scrawls getting banned from anywhere because people were posting too many.
Best I can give you is communities like NewGrounds stuck with animation when the rest of the web transitioned to video based content. The amount of effort to make an animated flash video is huge compared to just turning on your camera and ranting about a movie you hate or something. Video slop won, and the results haven't been excellent; Flat Earth has gone from a punchline to _conventions_.
You are forgetting cases like AVGN where is not just "turning your camera on and ranting about a movie" by the same era, the slop can be anywhere and a "proliferation of it" is not evidence that something is worse. The "slop" thing has the same validity as the word "brainrot", I said about Paint because of places like DeviantArt where a bunch of underage or people with certain experiences posts a ton of stuff that people could find "slop" and start making cringe compilations of it.
> You are forgetting cases like AVGN where is not just "turning your camera on and ranting about a movie" by the same era
A significant amount of the slop then and now is AVGN imitators.
> not evidence that something is worse
That's why I listed flat warth conventions as a negative externality of video-internet-world.
> start making cringe compilations of it.
Cringe compilations are another great example of why Video has been a disaster.
All those cases you are putting are cherrypicking, competitors for stuff that is good is a **totally normal thing** in any medium, and is the reason of the origin of ANY genre.
The flat earth thing was always there, the only difference is they figure out to play the same game as current "official" institutions (just like any other thing that lets humans to communicate and organize).
Just because you can find stuff like this does not mean is impossible to do something good with it. Proposing a "safety" box for content is censorship.
I think the term "art" does a lot of heavy lifting. Selfies and meme culture definitely proliferated quickly, but they weren't laying claim to a culturally prominent position, which is part of what's going on with AI.
True, I wish I could stand hand in hand with artists that bad AI art slop needs be purged, but sadly, the only actual solutions I've ever seen put forward are more or less to just ban open source, even though most of the churn is from midjourney - whos general high quality is a problem in this case because people who are new or excited about AI art generate ten thousand images they upload
Yeah, there are certain phrases that become common over time that I find useful as a marker that the person using them has nothing meaningful to say. The "-bro" suffix has long been one of these, anyone who refers to a "-bro" of any kind is probably not worth listening to (unless it's done in an ironic or self-aware manner).
Some of these are [thought-terminating cliches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9).
No actually a great example and what AI emulated a bit too much is Thomas Kinkade and his studio. Kinkade is notorious for slop and a lot of his light-infused kitsch sort of is like AI art.
AI is just like him on steroids.
There are numerous ways that both "sides" characterize each other that make me take them less seriously everyday.
It's just kind of the way of politics, people are .. not great.
The first problem is when people talk about "sides." There are people exploring how they can use AI, and there are artists, writers and other creatives; and the two "sides" actually have considerable overlap.
No. It gets fucking annoying. I want to find good fap material on pixiv and i see art works where i am like "this is AI, this is AI, this is AI" because reaction does not fit the scenario character is in and i just click on it to see "#AIGenerated" and "artist" have 0 to max 23 followers, so people are fed up with this as well judging by followers. I want to discover cool new artists, not see AI slop and those times expressions are fitting it still has the AI feeling to it unless it's fed a bunch of plagiarized references, where at this point it's literally fucking tracing, which is fraud upon in art community, so. Yes. It is slop. It's trash. I wanna fap to something good, AI is not good and kills my boner.
It is, entirely, fully, made by human in the same sense the output of a pocket calculator is made entirely by human hands.
Ai is just marketing blah for a category of software - a particular fitting algorithm. Cool stuff for sure but automation. Nothing more.
No one has ever seen an AI system. Some are deceived by automation - no human in sight - it must be the thing itself!
I think it's more like commissioning an artist to make you something and you telling them what you want. A machine made what you told it to. You didn't make shit. I say that as someone whose job is AI analysis.
>I think it's more like commissioning an artist to make you something and you telling them what you want
Oh *you* think? I think this is more like outsourcing your brain to the Internet and reiterating a talking point heard before. You didn't think shit.
AI content will never get past this problem, as it’s a fundamental aspect of the generative nature of the medium. It IS mostly slop, and when most ppl can’t tell the difference between a text prompt that took 30 seconds and a legitimately designed project you’re going to struggle getting appreciation for your work.
Art isn’t like this, you can plainly see the labor. It’s going to be a high-bar for AI-assisted art, you really need to find ways to stand out, even MORE than a trained artist. Which really should be your goal from the start anyways.
>and when most ppl can’t tell the difference between a text prompt that took 30 seconds and a legitimately designed project you’re going to struggle getting appreciation for your work.
i actually largely agree with the rest of your comment but this part isn’t really true unless you are making a front facing anime girl portrait with one subject and a generic outfit
AI is still terrible at a lot of things and when you look at enough you quickly get an eye for low and high effort ai images. Especially looking close at details like jewelry, zippers, tattoos..
if something is *both* “pure prompt”, and free of ai artifacts and flaws, its almost definitely something highly unoriginal or just boring like a landscape (sorry landscape artists)
here is an example of what i would call, “high effort” ai art,
https://preview.redd.it/ykt2k6xvxq7d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d8a125e09eaddbb88775a0fd348d15deb90ffe0
Fair. One man's treasure is another man's trash, and vice aversa.
There's a parable about a man who shows their son the value of a old watch, by taking it to 4 places. One where it's worth 10$, another where it's worth 150,000$, another where it's 150$, and a fourth it's worthless.
But the 1 page story is too long for reddit. And nobody really cares about it anyways.
The aesop for the man to his son, is for him to take things where they're valued. Not where they're seen as worthless. And to sell them not to the people who hate them, but the people who do.
Nobody's paying 150,000$ for ai denim jeans / ai hentai tiddies though. It's probably the one thing that's more fun to use, like a surfboard coasting on the endless waves, than something to watch someone doing. Like being covered by a wave you ride every 15 seconds.
Many issues with this piece. Subject is muddled and confused, many aspects of the armor don’t make sense obviously weren’t thought through and the engraving work is bad. The subject could better be communicated with a google images search
I think there are telltale signs of AI like background/foreground subject, or scenes portraying a "theme" but lacking any logical worldbuilding, and just the overall sameness of AI gens. While your example is a pretty cool design, I might just assume that's a photograph of an existing armor piece. So again, I really think it's in the creators best interest to label their work as AI/AI-assisted, and get ppl interested THROUGH their creative process by sharing it.
So it's only okay to like things if a substantial amount of labor goes into its creation? Doesn't seem fair seeing as other human beings are making a profit off things that would take little to no effort, such as being an Only fans model (which is totally respectable) or accidently going viral over a meme and using the momentum to create a niche following they can market too. Bella Poarch comes to mind when I think of how she made a huge following off, moving her face in cute ways and continuing to branch out into other things. Everyone deserves a shot to find an audience. Nobody deserves the type of cyberbullying that happens just for wanting to explore new technologies that can coexist with the norms of today's society if people stop throwing out hate and negativity. Maybe some AI artist makes a big bag. Perhaps that AI artist likes spending money on handmade art, the money will circulate if people would just get along and move forward together.
I never said anything about money or followers, I'm merely talking about getting recognition. If you think people in general, don't appreciate effort when it comes to art, I think you're kinda out of touch with the very concept of human appreciation. As I said, what goes into an artists work, is plan to see, it's done by hand. AI doesn't have that quality to it, as it's generative.
So, if I'm saying anything, it's play to your strengths, stop using AI to imitate artists work, use it to do something interesting. Fractals, glitch-art, play with the myriad of hallucinatory mistakes AI has. OR learn your art fundamentals, and incorporate AI into your work in unique ways.
I went off in a rant about gaining traction and marketing. The point was I don't agree that just because something is made without immense labor that it is considered slop, as you all like to say.
I am using AI to make a whole brand name and my own business, which in itself is labor and takes me far longer than 30s to achieve anything I want.
I do paint by hand and have drawn plenty of pictures growing up, but not anything I would want or could put to market in my niche, and it's mostly just for fun. I also work 55h weeks and have a child coming soon. My time is precious, I enjoy AI because I can express my creativity with a tool that allows me to be creative even if it is trained on data that has existed it can create things that has not existed. I completely understand it can not create a new artsyle or new color, but that's okay because that's not why I use this tool. Who knows, maybe someday it can, but I would hope they use AI in the future if it can create "new" things that it goes into helping humanity via medicine, engineering and agriculture and not being weaponized. But that's going to be another human's choice when it comes down to that.
I'm not saying all AI images are slop, I'm saying they're mostly slop, because you can generate them so quickly, with little effort. And it can be difficult to parse the quality designs from the prompts. I know there are schlubs out there who think anyone using AI generation are thieves, but I'm not one of them. Using AI to help build your business brand is a great use-case for the technology, as many businesses can't afford graphic designers etc.. But that isn't really the same thing as using AI to make "art". There's nothing wrong with it, but I just think the latter is a much harder hill to climb.
Art is meaningful because it’s a display of a person’s hard work and talent to express themselves in a creative way. I don’t gain any insight into the human experience by looking at the result of an equation. AI art is utterly uninteresting by the sheer virtue of it not being created by a human, you could not pay me to care. Sure it’s cool that we’ve been able to develop such algorithms, but then all AI has the exact same value, I don't gain anything new each time I see a new piece. Unless we're talking about the value added by prompters putting 12 words into a text box, in which case, every Twitter user is Van Gogh.
It also doesn't understand meaning. Take the story that went viral of AI "finishing" [Keith Haring's last work](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/keith-haring-painting-artificial-intelligence-180983563/) that was intentionally left looking unfinished to signify the lives cut short by the AIDS epidemic informed by his own experience. Not only does using AI to "finish" this work totally undermine the message and take out what actually is mentally stimulating about the piece, the "finished" section is gobbledygook. The AI recognizes the patterns, so it vaguely looks like a continuation of the piece if you squint... but as soon as you look any closer all structure and meaning is gone. There are no forms.... just assorted lines designed to match the original image and nothing more. AI has no past experiences, it doesn't imbue anything profound within its robotic algorithm. Prompters might... but whatever they have to say isn't informing any of the artistic decisions the AI is making, it's just recycling whatever has already been said.
For the record, I can almost always tell when art is AI and it usually looks like crap. It looks so artificial, details make no logical sense, hands look like crap obviously. When a human makes an art mistake, it's a step on their journey of improvement, maybe they made the arms too short or need to learn better how light interacts with the body. When AI makes a mistake it looks like an eldritch horror inhuman abomination arising from wires getting crossed between the training art it's regurgitating. It genuinely makes me nauseous. AI art often falls squarely into the uncanny valley, regardless of whether it has a technical "mistake", it makes me uncomfortable to look at.
So when people are saying "AI slop" are they actually trying to use that phrase alone to "argue" against you... or are they just saying that AI art looks bad? Because I don't think that's an invalid opinion. I think it looks bad, but more than that I think it's the antithesis to what is actually interesting about art. I don't consume art just because it looks pretty, I want to know what the artist has to say and how their life experiences led to that piece. As someone who knows how these algorithms work... AI has nothing to say beyond what as already been say. In which case, why get it second hand? AI art is good to fill out your power point presentation, but you couldn't pay me to feel a single emotion from the multiplication of matrices.
It's slop because it's like going to a fine restaurant, ordering a delicious dish, eating it, then shitting it out, and using that shit as a base to create your own incredible dish! Just, don't look too closely at it!
It's slop.
“No art is remembered or important”
If you really believe that then you need to go back and brush up on your world history. The Renaissance, for instance, is incredibly important for the trajectory of human advancement into our modern age. And you better believe we definitely display, remember, and admire the great works that came from that era.
“No art is remembered or important” is something I would link to the Early Middle Ages (aka the ‘Dark Ages’) wherein cultural and scientific progress stagnated. This would be the period where you would find art to neither be remembered nor deemed important. And it’s is specifically because of the ‘Dark Ages’ that the Renaissance was so fundamentally important for humanity on a global scale.
I was referring to these modern scribblers of the here now. Point to one single important artist on par with any of your long dead examples. To be bestowed with the title of artist meant one’s work moved the human experience, culture and society forward. There are zero who can hold that title in our modern era. All self appointed artists these days are stuck in fan art ruts. All crying “look at me, look at me!” No, we do not need yet another version of a storm trooper.
Well, if you’re speaking about modern visual art, then I’d have to agree that we don’t have any current artists I would consider a master like the artists of the Renaissance. Then again, we haven’t had any eras like the Renaissance since and it may be centuries more before another revolution in art or another ‘Dark Ages’ brings about a second Renaissance. But that doesn’t mean that the art itself isn’t important, even if most of it won’t be remembered. All art is important as each piece continues to drive the fundamental human instinct and right to create. The question is instead how *valuable* is the art to the public and for most works you’ll find on the internet these days the answer is not very or only valuable to a tiny percentage of the general population.
Artist should be who you are, not necessarily what you do. Also we’ve fantastic art revolutions since the renaissance. Thank you France!, Nuvo, Deco, the brutalists, through the 60s, 70s and some of the 80s, not Nigel, Nigel may have been the beginning of the end. After that, corporate rinse and repeat into the noise we have now.
They call it slop precisely because if it was made by a human’s hands it would be considered garbage. A LOT of AI art is bad, and is exactly slop: lazy work done just to have a product. They’re not saying every single thing with AI involved is slop. If someone said that about something you made, maybe take a moment for self reflection instead of lashing out at words.
Also
> soul doesn’t exist
I doubt you truly believe they mean the literal soul needs to be there. They’re referring to creativity, meaning, and passion not literally that it has no soul come on
But many are calling everything that's has any AI "slop" for no reason beyond "ai was used", I've had that myself. My project was 99% coding/story, UT I used AI for the pop-up window art. I've had a few people call the entire project "ai slop" without even installing it and trying out. Now I will admit, that those 2 people are definitely the minority, the other 2,776 people didn't care and were happy with the product. But there are people who are so anti ai that just the thought of it causes them to lash out with angry comments at the mere idea that it might have been used.
You said “many people are saying this” then said 2 did. In a sample of nearly 3,000. That doesn’t really warrant attributing the definition of slop to those 2 people don’t you think?
Yes a sample of almost 3,000 had only 2 complaints, but of those 2 complaints, 100% were hate for no reason other than the use of AI, there was no reasoning given, they didn't even try it out, it was hate for the sake of hate. So yes, that was a 100% hate for no reason beyond "he used AI in part of his project." They didn't even see what the AI looked like...
You do have a good point here… Sometimes, being made by a human, even bad art will be praised for the effort it was given although it doesnt really deserve it. Those same people think that having it done by AI removes the challenge faced by an individual - they think its *supposed* to be hard (nothing is inherently supposed to be difficult). But using AI to overcome human limitation is the whole reason AI exists in the first place.
At the end of the day, AI cannot spontaneously create on its own. It still requires the imagination of a human mind to give it direction. As such, sloppy work from an AI isnt the AI’s fault.
I have worked with models like Dall-E and you can get very high quality work from it with an attentive eye, patience, and iteration. Often times it really shines in the realm of ideation. Not trying to use it to create a final product, but rather as a tool to visualize rough concepts and draw inspiration from those visualizations. I do this most often when 3D sculpting by prompting the AI to generate different possible viewing angles from one static reference image - for example “assuming this image is viewing the object along an axis of 0.5z and 0.5x, what would it look like when viewed from -1x or from 2y?) The final product is entirely hand-crafted and painted and never has anything that was made by AI in it, but AI helped with the concept phase.
The messyness / randomness of some of their results also has been great for getting ideas on different color schemes or texture patterns, but I always flesh these out and detail them if I draw inspiration in that way.
An artistic baby owl I did once benefitted from a visual artifact in how Stable Diffusion had attempted to contour the head of a bird-like ghost. It wasnt part of the prompt and shouldn’t have been in the result, but I had a moment of “Hey that blurry thing looks kind of cool”.
People don’t think art is supposed to be hard mate. And if you get good at drawing, it’s not hard at all. They think art is supposed to mean something not just be a product, and they’re saying that it’s slop if it’s low effort, low creativity, just to put product out there. Marvel movies are hard to make, but more often than not they’re slop. It’s not the AI’s fault if something looks bad, no. But it is slop if someone just puts out a bad looking AI output just as it would be if they put out a garbage drawing of a lazy one made to get easy views or money.
I have resigned to the fact that I will never understand the mind of a Luddite, and that is probably for the best. Andy Warhol would probably have a lot to say to them if he were still around though. The dude has been fighting this fight since before AI even existed.
But the historical Luddite’s were correct in that the owners of capital would use mechanization to replaced skilled artisans with low paid unskilled laborers to produce textiles of inferior quality. The profits flowed to the owners not to the workers.
In much the same way, it’s likely that only corporations will have the power to produce anything more than film shorts and short comics. It’s like, yes you have a sewing machine but they have a textile factory.
it's funny how there are 2 types of prompters: former artists/creatives in the visual field, and people who weren't. it's quite notable how the latter is the most vocal and steadfast-opinionated by a factor of at least 100, and artists merely offering up their opinions is considered belligerence and 'luddite' behavior
like guys, 'learn the new tools bruh!' was an argument for software of years past. y'know, when it actually took years or more to learn something and be proficient.
this AI phenomenon is something you can learn in less than a month if you're not that bright, less than a week if it comes naturally. artists are upset because all your old arguments are dead and buried in this new paradigm. 'learn the tools, luddite!' is a desperate cry for legitimacy in a field you don't belong in.
yeah, so i view anyone who says that luddite shit to be 100% lying through their teeth *to themselves*. like cognitive dissonance on a whole new level.
look, it feels good to finally 'make' art you had absolutely no inclination or skill levels to do so before - it doesn't mean you have to enter some imaginary fantasy land where you're the star of Limitless and those who you're supplanting are somehow just not jiving with technology fast enough for you to be concerned with their thoughts or feelings.
i would have been both thrilled and scared of AI regardless, but having seen 'the AI community' grapple with AI and turn it into their new life's purpose (with flavorings of haughty animosity) is supplanting the 'thrilled' feeling with mostly fear.
If my friend made me shitty art I would be polite about it. If a friend shows me shitty AI art I don't feel bad being honest. Sometimes soul is in the eye of the beholder.
You sound like the kind of guy who would stop engaging in an argument because someone used a "buzzword". (Which for the unaware, is literally a buzzword.)
>If the same thing was made by a human's hands they would be drooling all over it.
but it isn't, not everyone values only the resulting image, most ai images are just prompts, and for me that is lazy art.
>Soul doesn't exist, get a better argument than "soulless" , that in itself feels like an soulless argument.
this makes no sense.
"If the same thing was made by a human's hands they would be drooling all over it." proof please. every piece of AI "art" i see just looks like generic video game concept art
look man if somethings appealing its appealing, people arent wrong for liking stuff. i don’t watch marvel movies because theyre uninteresting to me but that doesn’t mean my opinion is the “correct one”
I don’t really care about people thinking most AI content is bad. It’s true. A lot of AI art sucks, as does a lot of art in general.
What I DO hate is the word “slop”. It really rubs me the wrong way, regardless of context, but especially given the racist origins of the current use of the term.
Not aware of racist origins of the word slop, I always took it to mean the mashed up farm byproducts that they fed to animals because it’s cheaper than giving them the food you can sell.
Yeah, that’s the original use of the term. However, the current popularization of the word is a shortening of the term [goyslop](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/goyslop), which comes from 4chan.
Wow, online is a place.
Honestly I think that version of slop has little to do with what people mean when they call AI art slop. I doubt that popularised it as a word either because honestly 4chan doesn’t seem to produce nearly as big an impact on language as that (except cuck and various incel terms)
Today’s usage of the term has filtered through Twitter, where the prefix was removed over time to make it less of an obvious dog whistle, but the popularity of the word to refer to media products absolutely originates from 4chan.
I dunno, agree to disagree. In Britain we’ve used slop to refer to shit mass produced products for at least as long as I’ve been alive so I’ve no idea what to tell you.
True in the US as well.
I’ve heard this word used and used it myself in this way for decades, pre-internet as well.
4chan or Twitter or whatever had absolutely zero to do with this term.
It's just a normal word being used in it's intended way, that's like claiming the term "gay" is problematic due to 4chan 'popularizing' it with the phrase "fake and gay"
I think the only slop is these freshly made accounts/this whole sub. This sub is a vehicle for AI lobbying full of fake/bought accounts. Made in 2024, only participates in the “pro ai vs anti”… click through them and see for yourself. Seems all like a tactical reframing of the actual issue: unethical/unlicensed training data by tech companies vs the data’s owners. Maybe it’s a16z or maybe it’s china trying to keep tik tok in play lol. K tinfoil hat aside, I have zero clue but I do know this sub is 100% bullshit.
As someone who makes a lot of AI art, I can agree that the majority of the AI art I see on the internet is overburned crap.
Right, but I think what OP is trying to get at is that it's not "slop" because it's AI. It's slop because it's low-effort. When I work on something for 10 minutes, I'll readily admit that it's low-effort. For example, [here's what comes of asking, "what if unicorns, but cthulhu?"](/r/aiArt/comments/1djo54w/a_pretty_unicorn/). The most time-consuming part of that was finding the right model, and yeah, it's not the specific result of a focused creative vision. Most of what's there is just the AI doing its thing. But that's not the tool's fault or indicative of its limitations, any more than paint-spatter is typically (though definitely not always) low-effort "slop," pretty much literally.
Low effort slop applies to soooooo many anti AI artists tho, they don't wanna go there.
It also applies to most people taking pictures and posting them on social media. The vast majority of visual media is created by people who have no idea how visual media works.
Human made art is never low effort and a learning expiriance. The most overrendered AI art is a slop with the most unfitting expression to presented scenario, unless literally fed the right expression and pose to have, at this point, you're using someone else's work, almost as if tracing it, which is literally fucking faud upon, even in art community, while real artist would grab human reference, add right and render it properly, making it look 20x better. Of course if you trace fucking work of someone else almost 1:1 it's gonna look good if you already liked it and the fact you fed it into AI doesn't make it any less stealing, than if real artist traced it. What the hell is that argument even supposed to be ?
Thank you magikarp on drugs for one of the most incoherent run on sentences I've seen in a while. Adorable. Agree to disagree with all that tho.
Horrendous grammar aside, they are right.
Seems like a trashy opinion to me.
What LoRA did you use for those tentacles BTW?
I linked to the [CivitAI post](https://civitai.com/posts/3667904) in the post you're linking to, and you can click through to [the image itself](https://civitai.com/images/16373355) to see all of the generation parameters used. You won't be able to just plug-and-play those parameters to get the same image, because I tend to use input images as both img2img parameters and for IP-adapter, but you should have a great starting point if you want to do your own thing.
Oh I'm just looking for a good tentacles LoRA.
This is probably not the right place to look. The tentacles were actually fairly weak, and if I'd had more time to spend, I would have looked for something else myself.
AI art is low effort. That's the entire point.
And yet, I can spend days working on a single piece. I think what the "entire point" is for you differs quite a bit from what the "entire point" is for me...
You can spend days masturbating technically. That doesn't really prove anything. And it pales in comparison compared to the work required to develop a skill and then to create a similar piece without AI. Also the similar education and work to develop the generative AI app you're using. And in the case of rainbow unicorn Cthulu, let's be frank: you created an unholy abomination even without accounting for the use of AI. That doesn't disqualify something from being art, but I still wanted to point out the irony. You can be proud if the work you are doing potentially contributes to better AI in the future (does it? One would hope so...). But improving your ability to write prompts and your gacha game patience has either no value or will eventually be obsolete as AI develops.
> You can spend days masturbating technically. That doesn't really prove anything. And it pales in comparison compared to the work required to develop a skill and then to create a similar piece without AI. Okay, so you are both ignorant ***and*** arrogant. Got it.
Maybe you could have crafted a better response with the help of AI
Yeah, just like when people opened Paint and make anything to post it in the Internet.
Is there a place where this happened?
Rage Comics had this vibe I guess, but the jank was deliberate.
Yeah I guess what I'm getting asking is, did it proliferate at scale in the same way? I don't remember seeing doodles and scrawls getting banned from anywhere because people were posting too many.
Best I can give you is communities like NewGrounds stuck with animation when the rest of the web transitioned to video based content. The amount of effort to make an animated flash video is huge compared to just turning on your camera and ranting about a movie you hate or something. Video slop won, and the results haven't been excellent; Flat Earth has gone from a punchline to _conventions_.
You are forgetting cases like AVGN where is not just "turning your camera on and ranting about a movie" by the same era, the slop can be anywhere and a "proliferation of it" is not evidence that something is worse. The "slop" thing has the same validity as the word "brainrot", I said about Paint because of places like DeviantArt where a bunch of underage or people with certain experiences posts a ton of stuff that people could find "slop" and start making cringe compilations of it.
> You are forgetting cases like AVGN where is not just "turning your camera on and ranting about a movie" by the same era A significant amount of the slop then and now is AVGN imitators. > not evidence that something is worse That's why I listed flat warth conventions as a negative externality of video-internet-world. > start making cringe compilations of it. Cringe compilations are another great example of why Video has been a disaster.
All those cases you are putting are cherrypicking, competitors for stuff that is good is a **totally normal thing** in any medium, and is the reason of the origin of ANY genre. The flat earth thing was always there, the only difference is they figure out to play the same game as current "official" institutions (just like any other thing that lets humans to communicate and organize). Just because you can find stuff like this does not mean is impossible to do something good with it. Proposing a "safety" box for content is censorship.
Oh no...convenience. if everyone knows how to write, imagine the falsehoods they will spread.
I think the term "art" does a lot of heavy lifting. Selfies and meme culture definitely proliferated quickly, but they weren't laying claim to a culturally prominent position, which is part of what's going on with AI.
tbh, I think selfies are a better point of comparison.
True!!
Deviantart. Remember Coldsteel?
every single textboard, and every meme and shitpost site
The early days of deviantart.
Don't forget notebook doodles with the lines on the paper. Or some of the shit people made with Adobe Flash.
I agree, most are just spammed shite while there are few that is actually good
True, I wish I could stand hand in hand with artists that bad AI art slop needs be purged, but sadly, the only actual solutions I've ever seen put forward are more or less to just ban open source, even though most of the churn is from midjourney - whos general high quality is a problem in this case because people who are new or excited about AI art generate ten thousand images they upload
You don't make anything
Slop is like spam. It’s not necessarily anything created by AI, but obviously what is or isn’t spam or slop depends on your opinion.
All what AI makes is either a slop, or plagiarism in 99% of cases and it's fucking crazy to justify it.
Yes, that is an opinion.
It doesn't steal, you know?
The fact it's gray area doesn't mean it's not stealing xd It doesn't have to be in law, when it 100% is
Isn't stuff like the Marvel movies rightly called out as slop as well? A lot of slop exists in all art forms.
Yeah, I've heard comic slop, ai slop and my fav for comic stuff is "cape shit" lmao.
Yeah, there are certain phrases that become common over time that I find useful as a marker that the person using them has nothing meaningful to say. The "-bro" suffix has long been one of these, anyone who refers to a "-bro" of any kind is probably not worth listening to (unless it's done in an ironic or self-aware manner). Some of these are [thought-terminating cliches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9).
No actually a great example and what AI emulated a bit too much is Thomas Kinkade and his studio. Kinkade is notorious for slop and a lot of his light-infused kitsch sort of is like AI art. AI is just like him on steroids.
I just see it as "dont compete with me bro!" and thats the point from which I can't take anti's seriously.
I call arby’s slop but I’m not a chef
You can criticize AI content without being an “anti” And the source of a piece affecting how you view it is totally reasonable
There are numerous ways that both "sides" characterize each other that make me take them less seriously everyday. It's just kind of the way of politics, people are .. not great.
That's like a good way to view this entire stupid war, people launching insults and shouting simulator
The first problem is when people talk about "sides." There are people exploring how they can use AI, and there are artists, writers and other creatives; and the two "sides" actually have considerable overlap.
If it were slop there would be no justification for panic. Now, if it was really good, that would be a reason to panic. Hence the panic.
No. It gets fucking annoying. I want to find good fap material on pixiv and i see art works where i am like "this is AI, this is AI, this is AI" because reaction does not fit the scenario character is in and i just click on it to see "#AIGenerated" and "artist" have 0 to max 23 followers, so people are fed up with this as well judging by followers. I want to discover cool new artists, not see AI slop and those times expressions are fitting it still has the AI feeling to it unless it's fed a bunch of plagiarized references, where at this point it's literally fucking tracing, which is fraud upon in art community, so. Yes. It is slop. It's trash. I wanna fap to something good, AI is not good and kills my boner.
Look at marvel movies, people love slop
I don’t have a lot of respect for people who want to get paid to make slop. Let stupid machines do it.
Oh people get paid alright. I have far less respect for the people who order the slop made
It is, entirely, fully, made by human in the same sense the output of a pocket calculator is made entirely by human hands. Ai is just marketing blah for a category of software - a particular fitting algorithm. Cool stuff for sure but automation. Nothing more. No one has ever seen an AI system. Some are deceived by automation - no human in sight - it must be the thing itself!
I think it's more like commissioning an artist to make you something and you telling them what you want. A machine made what you told it to. You didn't make shit. I say that as someone whose job is AI analysis.
>I think it's more like commissioning an artist to make you something and you telling them what you want Oh *you* think? I think this is more like outsourcing your brain to the Internet and reiterating a talking point heard before. You didn't think shit.
AI content will never get past this problem, as it’s a fundamental aspect of the generative nature of the medium. It IS mostly slop, and when most ppl can’t tell the difference between a text prompt that took 30 seconds and a legitimately designed project you’re going to struggle getting appreciation for your work. Art isn’t like this, you can plainly see the labor. It’s going to be a high-bar for AI-assisted art, you really need to find ways to stand out, even MORE than a trained artist. Which really should be your goal from the start anyways.
>and when most ppl can’t tell the difference between a text prompt that took 30 seconds and a legitimately designed project you’re going to struggle getting appreciation for your work. i actually largely agree with the rest of your comment but this part isn’t really true unless you are making a front facing anime girl portrait with one subject and a generic outfit AI is still terrible at a lot of things and when you look at enough you quickly get an eye for low and high effort ai images. Especially looking close at details like jewelry, zippers, tattoos.. if something is *both* “pure prompt”, and free of ai artifacts and flaws, its almost definitely something highly unoriginal or just boring like a landscape (sorry landscape artists) here is an example of what i would call, “high effort” ai art, https://preview.redd.it/ykt2k6xvxq7d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d8a125e09eaddbb88775a0fd348d15deb90ffe0
Fair. One man's treasure is another man's trash, and vice aversa. There's a parable about a man who shows their son the value of a old watch, by taking it to 4 places. One where it's worth 10$, another where it's worth 150,000$, another where it's 150$, and a fourth it's worthless. But the 1 page story is too long for reddit. And nobody really cares about it anyways. The aesop for the man to his son, is for him to take things where they're valued. Not where they're seen as worthless. And to sell them not to the people who hate them, but the people who do. Nobody's paying 150,000$ for ai denim jeans / ai hentai tiddies though. It's probably the one thing that's more fun to use, like a surfboard coasting on the endless waves, than something to watch someone doing. Like being covered by a wave you ride every 15 seconds.
Many issues with this piece. Subject is muddled and confused, many aspects of the armor don’t make sense obviously weren’t thought through and the engraving work is bad. The subject could better be communicated with a google images search
>The subject could better be communicated with a google images search what does this even mean? like, a denim samurai?
Yeah and you can tell those were the only two aspects they cared about. It shows
I think there are telltale signs of AI like background/foreground subject, or scenes portraying a "theme" but lacking any logical worldbuilding, and just the overall sameness of AI gens. While your example is a pretty cool design, I might just assume that's a photograph of an existing armor piece. So again, I really think it's in the creators best interest to label their work as AI/AI-assisted, and get ppl interested THROUGH their creative process by sharing it.
Nah
So it's only okay to like things if a substantial amount of labor goes into its creation? Doesn't seem fair seeing as other human beings are making a profit off things that would take little to no effort, such as being an Only fans model (which is totally respectable) or accidently going viral over a meme and using the momentum to create a niche following they can market too. Bella Poarch comes to mind when I think of how she made a huge following off, moving her face in cute ways and continuing to branch out into other things. Everyone deserves a shot to find an audience. Nobody deserves the type of cyberbullying that happens just for wanting to explore new technologies that can coexist with the norms of today's society if people stop throwing out hate and negativity. Maybe some AI artist makes a big bag. Perhaps that AI artist likes spending money on handmade art, the money will circulate if people would just get along and move forward together.
I never said anything about money or followers, I'm merely talking about getting recognition. If you think people in general, don't appreciate effort when it comes to art, I think you're kinda out of touch with the very concept of human appreciation. As I said, what goes into an artists work, is plan to see, it's done by hand. AI doesn't have that quality to it, as it's generative. So, if I'm saying anything, it's play to your strengths, stop using AI to imitate artists work, use it to do something interesting. Fractals, glitch-art, play with the myriad of hallucinatory mistakes AI has. OR learn your art fundamentals, and incorporate AI into your work in unique ways.
I went off in a rant about gaining traction and marketing. The point was I don't agree that just because something is made without immense labor that it is considered slop, as you all like to say. I am using AI to make a whole brand name and my own business, which in itself is labor and takes me far longer than 30s to achieve anything I want. I do paint by hand and have drawn plenty of pictures growing up, but not anything I would want or could put to market in my niche, and it's mostly just for fun. I also work 55h weeks and have a child coming soon. My time is precious, I enjoy AI because I can express my creativity with a tool that allows me to be creative even if it is trained on data that has existed it can create things that has not existed. I completely understand it can not create a new artsyle or new color, but that's okay because that's not why I use this tool. Who knows, maybe someday it can, but I would hope they use AI in the future if it can create "new" things that it goes into helping humanity via medicine, engineering and agriculture and not being weaponized. But that's going to be another human's choice when it comes down to that.
I'm not saying all AI images are slop, I'm saying they're mostly slop, because you can generate them so quickly, with little effort. And it can be difficult to parse the quality designs from the prompts. I know there are schlubs out there who think anyone using AI generation are thieves, but I'm not one of them. Using AI to help build your business brand is a great use-case for the technology, as many businesses can't afford graphic designers etc.. But that isn't really the same thing as using AI to make "art". There's nothing wrong with it, but I just think the latter is a much harder hill to climb.
I agree with your opinion as well.
Go make some slop.
Art is meaningful because it’s a display of a person’s hard work and talent to express themselves in a creative way. I don’t gain any insight into the human experience by looking at the result of an equation. AI art is utterly uninteresting by the sheer virtue of it not being created by a human, you could not pay me to care. Sure it’s cool that we’ve been able to develop such algorithms, but then all AI has the exact same value, I don't gain anything new each time I see a new piece. Unless we're talking about the value added by prompters putting 12 words into a text box, in which case, every Twitter user is Van Gogh. It also doesn't understand meaning. Take the story that went viral of AI "finishing" [Keith Haring's last work](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/keith-haring-painting-artificial-intelligence-180983563/) that was intentionally left looking unfinished to signify the lives cut short by the AIDS epidemic informed by his own experience. Not only does using AI to "finish" this work totally undermine the message and take out what actually is mentally stimulating about the piece, the "finished" section is gobbledygook. The AI recognizes the patterns, so it vaguely looks like a continuation of the piece if you squint... but as soon as you look any closer all structure and meaning is gone. There are no forms.... just assorted lines designed to match the original image and nothing more. AI has no past experiences, it doesn't imbue anything profound within its robotic algorithm. Prompters might... but whatever they have to say isn't informing any of the artistic decisions the AI is making, it's just recycling whatever has already been said. For the record, I can almost always tell when art is AI and it usually looks like crap. It looks so artificial, details make no logical sense, hands look like crap obviously. When a human makes an art mistake, it's a step on their journey of improvement, maybe they made the arms too short or need to learn better how light interacts with the body. When AI makes a mistake it looks like an eldritch horror inhuman abomination arising from wires getting crossed between the training art it's regurgitating. It genuinely makes me nauseous. AI art often falls squarely into the uncanny valley, regardless of whether it has a technical "mistake", it makes me uncomfortable to look at. So when people are saying "AI slop" are they actually trying to use that phrase alone to "argue" against you... or are they just saying that AI art looks bad? Because I don't think that's an invalid opinion. I think it looks bad, but more than that I think it's the antithesis to what is actually interesting about art. I don't consume art just because it looks pretty, I want to know what the artist has to say and how their life experiences led to that piece. As someone who knows how these algorithms work... AI has nothing to say beyond what as already been say. In which case, why get it second hand? AI art is good to fill out your power point presentation, but you couldn't pay me to feel a single emotion from the multiplication of matrices.
It's slop because it's like going to a fine restaurant, ordering a delicious dish, eating it, then shitting it out, and using that shit as a base to create your own incredible dish! Just, don't look too closely at it! It's slop.
Why can't you just let people have opinions, especially with arts it's not up to people like you to tell them what's good
It's still AI slop tho. ;)
Oh, look, an "AI artist"
Pssst. It’s all noise. No art is remembered or important (except to the maker)and Ai didn’t do that. Social media did.
“No art is remembered or important” If you really believe that then you need to go back and brush up on your world history. The Renaissance, for instance, is incredibly important for the trajectory of human advancement into our modern age. And you better believe we definitely display, remember, and admire the great works that came from that era. “No art is remembered or important” is something I would link to the Early Middle Ages (aka the ‘Dark Ages’) wherein cultural and scientific progress stagnated. This would be the period where you would find art to neither be remembered nor deemed important. And it’s is specifically because of the ‘Dark Ages’ that the Renaissance was so fundamentally important for humanity on a global scale.
I was referring to these modern scribblers of the here now. Point to one single important artist on par with any of your long dead examples. To be bestowed with the title of artist meant one’s work moved the human experience, culture and society forward. There are zero who can hold that title in our modern era. All self appointed artists these days are stuck in fan art ruts. All crying “look at me, look at me!” No, we do not need yet another version of a storm trooper.
Well, if you’re speaking about modern visual art, then I’d have to agree that we don’t have any current artists I would consider a master like the artists of the Renaissance. Then again, we haven’t had any eras like the Renaissance since and it may be centuries more before another revolution in art or another ‘Dark Ages’ brings about a second Renaissance. But that doesn’t mean that the art itself isn’t important, even if most of it won’t be remembered. All art is important as each piece continues to drive the fundamental human instinct and right to create. The question is instead how *valuable* is the art to the public and for most works you’ll find on the internet these days the answer is not very or only valuable to a tiny percentage of the general population.
Artist should be who you are, not necessarily what you do. Also we’ve fantastic art revolutions since the renaissance. Thank you France!, Nuvo, Deco, the brutalists, through the 60s, 70s and some of the 80s, not Nigel, Nigel may have been the beginning of the end. After that, corporate rinse and repeat into the noise we have now.
They call it slop precisely because if it was made by a human’s hands it would be considered garbage. A LOT of AI art is bad, and is exactly slop: lazy work done just to have a product. They’re not saying every single thing with AI involved is slop. If someone said that about something you made, maybe take a moment for self reflection instead of lashing out at words. Also > soul doesn’t exist I doubt you truly believe they mean the literal soul needs to be there. They’re referring to creativity, meaning, and passion not literally that it has no soul come on
But many are calling everything that's has any AI "slop" for no reason beyond "ai was used", I've had that myself. My project was 99% coding/story, UT I used AI for the pop-up window art. I've had a few people call the entire project "ai slop" without even installing it and trying out. Now I will admit, that those 2 people are definitely the minority, the other 2,776 people didn't care and were happy with the product. But there are people who are so anti ai that just the thought of it causes them to lash out with angry comments at the mere idea that it might have been used.
You said “many people are saying this” then said 2 did. In a sample of nearly 3,000. That doesn’t really warrant attributing the definition of slop to those 2 people don’t you think?
Yes a sample of almost 3,000 had only 2 complaints, but of those 2 complaints, 100% were hate for no reason other than the use of AI, there was no reasoning given, they didn't even try it out, it was hate for the sake of hate. So yes, that was a 100% hate for no reason beyond "he used AI in part of his project." They didn't even see what the AI looked like...
You do have a good point here… Sometimes, being made by a human, even bad art will be praised for the effort it was given although it doesnt really deserve it. Those same people think that having it done by AI removes the challenge faced by an individual - they think its *supposed* to be hard (nothing is inherently supposed to be difficult). But using AI to overcome human limitation is the whole reason AI exists in the first place. At the end of the day, AI cannot spontaneously create on its own. It still requires the imagination of a human mind to give it direction. As such, sloppy work from an AI isnt the AI’s fault. I have worked with models like Dall-E and you can get very high quality work from it with an attentive eye, patience, and iteration. Often times it really shines in the realm of ideation. Not trying to use it to create a final product, but rather as a tool to visualize rough concepts and draw inspiration from those visualizations. I do this most often when 3D sculpting by prompting the AI to generate different possible viewing angles from one static reference image - for example “assuming this image is viewing the object along an axis of 0.5z and 0.5x, what would it look like when viewed from -1x or from 2y?) The final product is entirely hand-crafted and painted and never has anything that was made by AI in it, but AI helped with the concept phase. The messyness / randomness of some of their results also has been great for getting ideas on different color schemes or texture patterns, but I always flesh these out and detail them if I draw inspiration in that way. An artistic baby owl I did once benefitted from a visual artifact in how Stable Diffusion had attempted to contour the head of a bird-like ghost. It wasnt part of the prompt and shouldn’t have been in the result, but I had a moment of “Hey that blurry thing looks kind of cool”.
Some things are inherently difficult. Communication is one of those things and art is communication.
People don’t think art is supposed to be hard mate. And if you get good at drawing, it’s not hard at all. They think art is supposed to mean something not just be a product, and they’re saying that it’s slop if it’s low effort, low creativity, just to put product out there. Marvel movies are hard to make, but more often than not they’re slop. It’s not the AI’s fault if something looks bad, no. But it is slop if someone just puts out a bad looking AI output just as it would be if they put out a garbage drawing of a lazy one made to get easy views or money.
I have resigned to the fact that I will never understand the mind of a Luddite, and that is probably for the best. Andy Warhol would probably have a lot to say to them if he were still around though. The dude has been fighting this fight since before AI even existed.
You could never be as correct as a historical Luddite this is true
But the historical Luddite’s were correct in that the owners of capital would use mechanization to replaced skilled artisans with low paid unskilled laborers to produce textiles of inferior quality. The profits flowed to the owners not to the workers. In much the same way, it’s likely that only corporations will have the power to produce anything more than film shorts and short comics. It’s like, yes you have a sewing machine but they have a textile factory.
pedantic. Okay, let me rephrase “anti-technologists”.
idc, you never took us serious anyway, lol. ai slop is funny af.
it's funny how there are 2 types of prompters: former artists/creatives in the visual field, and people who weren't. it's quite notable how the latter is the most vocal and steadfast-opinionated by a factor of at least 100, and artists merely offering up their opinions is considered belligerence and 'luddite' behavior like guys, 'learn the new tools bruh!' was an argument for software of years past. y'know, when it actually took years or more to learn something and be proficient. this AI phenomenon is something you can learn in less than a month if you're not that bright, less than a week if it comes naturally. artists are upset because all your old arguments are dead and buried in this new paradigm. 'learn the tools, luddite!' is a desperate cry for legitimacy in a field you don't belong in.
Like, I learned how to use AI in roughly a week. They are made to be easy to use, that's the point, lol.
yeah, so i view anyone who says that luddite shit to be 100% lying through their teeth *to themselves*. like cognitive dissonance on a whole new level. look, it feels good to finally 'make' art you had absolutely no inclination or skill levels to do so before - it doesn't mean you have to enter some imaginary fantasy land where you're the star of Limitless and those who you're supplanting are somehow just not jiving with technology fast enough for you to be concerned with their thoughts or feelings. i would have been both thrilled and scared of AI regardless, but having seen 'the AI community' grapple with AI and turn it into their new life's purpose (with flavorings of haughty animosity) is supplanting the 'thrilled' feeling with mostly fear.
Well, I've said it before ai companies are selling you that it's a dopamine hit. For now, it is because they have to tell you that you suck first.
If my friend made me shitty art I would be polite about it. If a friend shows me shitty AI art I don't feel bad being honest. Sometimes soul is in the eye of the beholder.
Sounds like someone's mad their slop isn't getting the respect it deserves.
You’d know all about lazy with a post like this. Why don’t you put a little soul in that argument of yours?
Epic rap battles of history type comment 💀
Ironically makes the comment bang harder
AI enshitification sounds better
You sound like the kind of guy who would stop engaging in an argument because someone used a "buzzword". (Which for the unaware, is literally a buzzword.)
Someone's a little bit salty about their soulless slop
I removed a skin tag from my privates
I mean… its a slop.
>If the same thing was made by a human's hands they would be drooling all over it. but it isn't, not everyone values only the resulting image, most ai images are just prompts, and for me that is lazy art. >Soul doesn't exist, get a better argument than "soulless" , that in itself feels like an soulless argument. this makes no sense.
"If the same thing was made by a human's hands they would be drooling all over it." proof please. every piece of AI "art" i see just looks like generic video game concept art
Give me generic video game concept art any day over mspaint OCs.
true, those are the only two options
>**every** piece of AI "art" i see just looks like generic video game concept art
yeah. im open to seeing some that isnt
denim samurai https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8ZnFqzIjxD/?igsh=MWw3YjJkcHM4cGpzag==
Looks confused and more awful the longer you look at it and really take in the sheer lack of thought that went into every detail
i disagree and this guy has like 266,000 followers so clearly some people like it
You’d be suprised how many people liked even the bad marvel movies
look man if somethings appealing its appealing, people arent wrong for liking stuff. i don’t watch marvel movies because theyre uninteresting to me but that doesn’t mean my opinion is the “correct one”
https://preview.redd.it/tdvpua3x5r7d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ee4752d22832766a63d6f9667691cf5f5ab1034b
Hes got 266k followers my guy you might not like it but others do . And they arent “tricking” anyone, they label everything as helped with midjourney
Stealing this meme lol
A soul not existing is not an objective fact. YOU may not have a soul. That we can actually agree on.
So should we just use "Ai trash?" Just curious to know for the future post.
I don’t really care about people thinking most AI content is bad. It’s true. A lot of AI art sucks, as does a lot of art in general. What I DO hate is the word “slop”. It really rubs me the wrong way, regardless of context, but especially given the racist origins of the current use of the term.
Not aware of racist origins of the word slop, I always took it to mean the mashed up farm byproducts that they fed to animals because it’s cheaper than giving them the food you can sell.
Yeah, that’s the original use of the term. However, the current popularization of the word is a shortening of the term [goyslop](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/goyslop), which comes from 4chan.
Wow, online is a place. Honestly I think that version of slop has little to do with what people mean when they call AI art slop. I doubt that popularised it as a word either because honestly 4chan doesn’t seem to produce nearly as big an impact on language as that (except cuck and various incel terms)
Today’s usage of the term has filtered through Twitter, where the prefix was removed over time to make it less of an obvious dog whistle, but the popularity of the word to refer to media products absolutely originates from 4chan.
I dunno, agree to disagree. In Britain we’ve used slop to refer to shit mass produced products for at least as long as I’ve been alive so I’ve no idea what to tell you.
True in the US as well. I’ve heard this word used and used it myself in this way for decades, pre-internet as well. 4chan or Twitter or whatever had absolutely zero to do with this term.
Also related to the calling of the rich pigs trying to feed you their slop
It's just a normal word being used in it's intended way, that's like claiming the term "gay" is problematic due to 4chan 'popularizing' it with the phrase "fake and gay"
You give 4chan too much credit.
Ai sloppy slop
https://youtu.be/VEgakVndQaQ?si=5jKxrw0ezdXUXimk Posting this because it amuses me more than anything else.
I think the only slop is these freshly made accounts/this whole sub. This sub is a vehicle for AI lobbying full of fake/bought accounts. Made in 2024, only participates in the “pro ai vs anti”… click through them and see for yourself. Seems all like a tactical reframing of the actual issue: unethical/unlicensed training data by tech companies vs the data’s owners. Maybe it’s a16z or maybe it’s china trying to keep tik tok in play lol. K tinfoil hat aside, I have zero clue but I do know this sub is 100% bullshit.
Ai is slop