Comment on Half a million Spotify users are unknowingly grooving to an AI-generated band
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 8 months ago
It’s not exactly “slop” if people are listening to it and presumably enjoying it. That just goes to show it’s not AI-generated content in general that people dislike - it’s bad AI-generated content. If the content is good, people are drawn to it regardless of who or what made it - as it should be.
It’s not exactly slop if the pigs eat it is it /s
I get what you’re saying, if people don’t detect ai music it must not be so bad. But in the original usage of slop, pigs don’t care, but humans wouldn’t eat the food. Same here, just because some people don’t mind doesn’t mean others can’t easily discern the difference
You could also make the argument that pigs would prefer better food if it was an option, but they have no choice, they’re only given access to slop.
That would require you to be able to detect AI-generated content with 100% accuracy, which simply isn’t the case.
What you actually have is a prejudice - you dislike content when you suspect or find out it’s AI-generated. But there’s undoubtedly AI-generated content you’ve encountered without realizing, and likely didn’t mind. Just as there’s human-made content you dislike.
You don’t hate all AI-generated content. You hate the idea of AI-generated content. That reaction is ideological, not purely about quality.
You’re free to say “I hate all AI-generated content” - but the issue isn’t what you believe you hate, it’s whether you can know that what you hate is in fact AI-generated.
You don’t need 100% detection accuracy to hate some AI content. But if you claim to hate all AI content, then the reliability of your detection absolutely matters. Because if even one piece slipped by - and you didn’t hate it - your statement is no longer true.
And considering how much AI-generated content is already out there - usually unlabeled and increasingly indistinguishable - it’s statistically improbable that everything you’ve consumed and didn’t hate was human-made. You may feel confident about your preferences, but you’re arguing from certainty where none is possible. That’s not a logical stance - it’s ideological.
It’s not exactly “slop” if people are listening to it and presumably enjoying it.
I don't agree with the logic. People listening to the music doesn't mean they necessarily enjoy it, just hate it enough not to skip, were at the skip limit for their free account, etc. People listen to ads too, and nobody enjoys those.
"AI slop" came into common usage with the onslaught of ai-generated articles. They only got so popular because somebody was out there clicking on them enough to generate ad revenue. It's a leap to assume that means they're reading, much less enjoying them. I think the same applies here, and "slop" is reasonable.
You’re not really engaging with what I said. I’m not claiming everyone who listens enjoys it, just pointing out that some clearly do - and if enough people are voluntarily replaying it or adding it to playlists, then the “slop” label starts sounding more like prejudice than critique.
There’s always filler and mediocrity in any medium - human or AI. We just don’t call it “slop” when it’s made by a garage band or a beginner solo artist. That word feels like it’s doing extra work here - as if the low quality is inherent to all AI content independent of the end result. And that’s exactly the bias I’m pointing to.
You can say it’s “AI slop,” but if it passes for music some people want to listen to, then maybe it’s time to reevaluate what that label is even supposed to mean.
SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
It can be slop and people can enjoy it.
For example, I’ll usually put something on for background music. Usually one of the lofi streams on YouTube. I’m sure that a huge portion of that music is generated, not performed. But I’m not really appreciating it as music, either. If I want to actually listen to music, I’ll put on actual music.