Because it's a strong signal of AI slop. Why put in more work than the "author" did?
If the author generated text that required no effort, and has no understanding of the contents of the material generated, and no self-awareness of their behavior and how the audience will receive it, it definitely doesn't warrant wasting a single second reading it.
Now, granted, maybe they did review it, maybe they did understand it, maybe they did know how it would be received and merely made a mistake, but how are we to know? It quacks like a duck.
The term "AI slop" is thought-terminating. A more nuanced approach: read it and decide for yourself on merits, rather than vibes.
That's like inhaling a virus to see if it's contagious. Reading text generated by a model tuned with RLHF is a dangerous pastime. It's all too easy to reach past a human's critical thinking and push the pleasure buttons. Uncanny valley is uncanny for a reason. As social monkeys we instinctively screech danger warnings at each other; AI slop gets the same treatment as an alligator pretending to be a log.
Life is short. Do you want to spend it reading text that was evidently generated by a machine? There is an opportunity cost to reading "slop."
90% of what I read on the internet is trash. I've long ago optimized for critical thinking. AI doesn't change that calculus at all.
Saying that something is thought terminating is thought terminating, it's the laziest "I win" bullshit approach ever. A more nuanced approach: don't produce slop and people won't dismiss it as lazy bullshit either.
No, that's not true at all. Thought-terminating cliches cause you to stop thinking; they give a quick shortcut that let's you be dismissive. That's what "AI slop" is, when someone bestows the moniker on a piece of prose that has "It's not this, it's that" in it.
Look, there's is a wide variety of work being produced with AI, all the way from exceptional professional work to total trash done by amateurs. Painting all over those efforts with the same brush of "AI slop" attempts to avoid the thought necessary to process the nuance in each individual situation. In fact, folks that use "AI slop" enjoy being able to dismiss AI output as quickly as possible; they seem to be quite happy to forgo whatever insights might be present in such work. But let's not for a moment pretend it's not a crappy heuristic.
Through this lens, dunking on a piece of prose because it has some trace of LLM processing seems both useless and uninsightful, which is why I'm rallying against it as thought-terminating. Do the thinking to determine whether what you're reading is valid. Saying that it has tells that an LLM might have contributed is not sufficient evidence to do that, and it's also something anyone can do, it requires no skill or insight, and makes for boring discussion. Zero curiousity, 100% dismissive.