If most people’s “latent” taste was as good as they thought it was, we wouldn’t have so much “AI slop” - AI generations that are so-labeled precisely because the act of publishing them demonstrates significantly below-average taste.

▲

dragonwriter 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

IME, most users of the term “AI slop” use it for all (identified) uses of AI because they believe that use of AI is itself inherently an indication of poor taste and low effort that invalidates the work independently of what quality the work would have viewed independently of the mode of creation.

There are definitely people who accept AI use generally who try to make “AI slop” a distinction within the universe of AI creation rather than a label for the entire universe of AI creation, but that seems to be a minority use of the term.

▲

jmathai 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not sure "most" people have taste (assuming taste isn't subjective).

I don't think AI slop is indicative of taste. A lot of work doesn't care about taste at all. And AI slop is problematic in that it churns out an awful lot of output that people don't really care to review.

	▲	dragonwriter 12 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I'm not sure "most" people have taste (assuming taste isn't subjective). Taste is literally the thing which the concept of subjectivity exists to explain!
	▲	blargey 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I’d frame taste as a combination of both. People mindfully interacting with a domain will develop nuanced aesthetic preference within it, and while preference is subjective, there’s still plenty that can be agreed upon or respected. Much like morality and relativism. Obliviousness and uncaring will have similar failure modes, all the more so if both lead to rubber-stamping AI outputs to vague prompts.