just because it was produced with the help of Ai does not mean it's slop. Slop means it's also wrong. The math may very well be interesting and correct.
C'mon, be real. Do you want to be the one to wade through a mountain of garbage by someone experiencing AI psychosis and thinking they've come up with a brilliant new idea to find something interesting and correct?
The signal to noise on ArXiv has always been a problem, due to open access and no peer review, and now AI has completely buried the signal. As with everything else, I now have to assume everything is shit without some other signal of quality; when I stumble on a project on github, if the developer has no software made before 2025, I'm leaving. It's not worth my time to try to find out whether they're a slop merchant or they know how computers work. Same with writing; I have begun to assume all new writers are shoveling slop at me.
I don't like that I have to be so suspicious. I'd rather take in the world with an open mind, but I can't afford it. I have limited time on this earth (I mean it, I'm feeling my age, I'm not wasting my one brief life on reading something somebody shat out on a whim).
Recently ran into someone who thought they had solved a major quantum computing problem. Needless to say, they had not, and I wasted a good hour wading through their ‘work’. Time I will never get back. Nothing more to add than to echo your thoughts. Wish I had a better solution.
Using an LLM as the language to express human thought isn’t slop — provided the human reviewed it. Skip review/edits and you’re just publishing raw model output, which reads like slop regardless of whatever insight might be hiding in it.
Comments
just because it was produced with the help of Ai does not mean it's slop. Slop means it's also wrong. The math may very well be interesting and correct.
C'mon, be real. Do you want to be the one to wade through a mountain of garbage by someone experiencing AI psychosis and thinking they've come up with a brilliant new idea to find something interesting and correct?
The signal to noise on ArXiv has always been a problem, due to open access and no peer review, and now AI has completely buried the signal. As with everything else, I now have to assume everything is shit without some other signal of quality; when I stumble on a project on github, if the developer has no software made before 2025, I'm leaving. It's not worth my time to try to find out whether they're a slop merchant or they know how computers work. Same with writing; I have begun to assume all new writers are shoveling slop at me.
I don't like that I have to be so suspicious. I'd rather take in the world with an open mind, but I can't afford it. I have limited time on this earth (I mean it, I'm feeling my age, I'm not wasting my one brief life on reading something somebody shat out on a whim).
Recently ran into someone who thought they had solved a major quantum computing problem. Needless to say, they had not, and I wasted a good hour wading through their ‘work’. Time I will never get back. Nothing more to add than to echo your thoughts. Wish I had a better solution.
Its a good point and I guess its a matter of opinion tho. I consider anything in math done with use of ai to be less quality.
Having established that they aren't neccesarily slop, may we ask how you determined which ones were written by AI? Or is that a matter of opinion too?
Using an LLM as the language to express human thought isn’t slop — provided the human reviewed it. Skip review/edits and you’re just publishing raw model output, which reads like slop regardless of whatever insight might be hiding in it.
This is an example expressed using llm :)