Slop Gives No Real Edge, It's Just Falsely Marketed That Way (FOMO)
4 days ago: Don't Settle for Slop
Earlier today The Register MS wrote about concerns that slop plagiarism will hurt Web sites, especially those that rely on search engines like GAFAM's (notably Google). Plagiarism in some measurable form is always bad, irrespective of what we call it (e.g. "Gemini" or "Bard" or "overview" or "hey hi"). It's not a new issue, e.g. sites that use language translations to turn one site into another (in another language), then pretend this automated translation makes it totally "original". That has been done for about 20 years already. Not a new problem!
Originality on the Web matters; if slop "answers [sic] are killing content publishers," as The Register MS puts is, then maybe sites became too dependent on search and calling them "content publishers" is part of the problem. The term "content" is misguided.
Slop is a lot of energy-consuming hooey; it does not add any real value, which is why slopfarms perish and eventually give up. This hooey is not financially viable and there are no slopfarms that became success stories. None!
Apropos slop, right now IBMers have a go at a very dumb management figure (reviled by many) who thinks chatbots will miraculously replace workers. Watch the hurt:
IBM as a company will do as well as a slopfarm. It's turning into an LLM that churns out slop, not real products. █