Comment on Utter bullshit like this

NOT_RICK@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  slop

  source

  • LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    🐽🐽🐽🐽 Oink oink! Slop slop slop! Slop slopping down my sloppy throat!

    source
  • Chozo@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    This word is losing meaning the more it's used for things that aren't even AI.

    source

    • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Slop as a slang term is far older than its present use to primarily describe the output of AI, see Merriam Webster’s definition 4-C for the second noun meaning of the word:

      a product of little or no value : rubbish

      watching the usual slop on TV

      source

      • Chozo@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Right, but the current colloquial usage of the word, especially in the context of digitally-manipulated images, is AI-centered. People aren't using the word "slop" to describe bad photoshops, they're using it to describe bad AI-gen.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Skullgrid@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Analog slop is still slop.

      source

      • Chozo@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Rude thing to say about something somebody took the time and made, IMO. Especially considering that there's literally nothing wrong with the images we're even talking about. The pictures are just fine.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Rhaedas@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    But maybe not AI. AI goes off training of real photos and would have variation in the surfaces, while someone doing this in Blender would be lazy and use the same texturing for all.

    source
• Chozo@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Engagement bait. YouTube's algorithm loves it when viewers do things like leave comments or likes. And responding to polls like this counts toward that engagement metric, no matter how shallow the content is.

  source