Yeah, what this actually achieves if anything is making it harder to quickly recognize slop for what it is, so readers are more likely to give it the benefit of the doubt and keep their eyeballs on it for longer. Which I suppose is desirable if you're in the slop-mongering business (e.g. doing SEO spam or other such methods of flooding the commons with sewage for the sake of profit).
Fits into a broad pattern of deceptive LLM terminology, for example "Deep Research": a humble and honest moniker would me "Reflection" or "Recursive self-prompting".
Yep, and their only reference to the word points to a survey that does not mention slop even once (A survey onllm-generated text detection: Necessity, methods, and future directions. Computational Linguistics, 51(1):275–338, 2025., https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.14724)
That's sloppy (hehe), if you are going to redefine a common word for the first time (i.e. references are not possible) at least do it explicitly.