That is not how it is generally being used.
replyThat is exactly how I see it generally being used. Why else would people be dismissing work as AI slop without even reading it, discovering what it says, or even looking into how and to what extent AI was used in a project? Saying things like "if you didn't write it I won't read it" at the first whiff of an AI smell is absolutely said to delegitimize all ai output.
replyOr in this specific case, why would someone call these proofs (no one is saying they are wrong) AI slop if not to delegitimize all AI output?
This. There's a large subset of people who, seemingly consciously, try to delegitimize anything related to AI by calling it* "slop".
reply* even pretty amazing advances like this one
AI Derangement Syndrome
replyPeople call some work AI slop "without even reading it" when the intention/substance of the work might exist somewhere buried within a wall of impenetrable LLM text (aka "the slop").
replyGood AI output is indistinguishable from human output. The whiff you mention is the reasoning pleonasm and tautology (intended) escaping into the output and the "author" not proof-reading/editing it out.
But it also happens in many other contexts where that is not true, such as this one right now. Bringing me back to my point that it’s not to discriminate and clarify between good and bad, but to muddy the water.
replyWe can't argue the latter without quantifying the former. All terms are misused by someone, but if it's statistically insignificant that's not an issue. I'm not convinced this one is sufficiently misused to detract from the common definition.
reply> The term “ai slop” is not supposed to discriminate good ai output from bad, the entire purpose of the phrase is a blanket term that delegitimizes all ai output.
replyThen it's a useless term and we should all stop using it.