I spent several years trying to get ground truth out of digital medical records and I would draw this parallel to AI slop:

With traditional medical records, you could see what the practitioner did and covered because only that was in the record.

With computerized records, the intent, thought process, most signal you would use to validate internal consistency, was hidden behind a wall of boilerplate and formality that armored the record against scrutiny.

Bad writing on LinkedIn is self-evident. Everything about it stinks.

AI slop is like a Trojan Horse for weak, undeveloped thoughts. They look finished, so they sneak into your field of view and consume whatever additional attention is required to finally realize that despite the slick packaging, this too is trash.

So “AI slop,” in this worldview, is a complaint that historical signals of quality simply based on form, no longer are useful gatekeepers for attention.

re: traditional vs electronic medical records, if you haven't read Seeing Like a State, I highly recommend checking it out. The book is all about the unexpected side effects of improving the legibility of information for decision makers - these attempts can erase or elide important local detail, which ultimately sabotages the bureaucracy's aim of improving the system.