I feel a bit like "AI-slop" is the new “fake news” slander and is bandied about with little regard for the reputations and efforts of the people behind the work.
Reference: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-98420-4_7 [note: this is an educational paper and sits behind a paywall] #ai #Autism (3/3)
Oct 9, 2026, 3:13 PM@castastrophe I've seen a few instances of people lobbing accusations at writers about AI usage where there was no proof of it.
It's a minefield. I detest use of AI for writing in any form -- I'd rather have somebody's unfiltered prose filled with errors and authentic voice than something that's been massaged by an LLM.*
But false positives and accusations are a real problem. I want to hold the line at "using these things is bad" without going full-on witch hunt against people.
I've suggested elsewhere that people could, and perhaps should, positively affirm that they haven't used AI in their writing. Encourage people to proactively state "no AI was used in creating this" and, hopefully, that would subtly flag where it had been used or the writer was unwilling to state that it hadn't been used.
People could still lie, of course, but I hope that would deter AI usage to some degree.
If people are going to use AI in their writing, then they should say so proudly. I feel like people have a right to know whether someone took the time to actually write something that they're asking others to read. Yes, that means that some folks will dismiss or refuse to engage with texts that are AI-assisted.
* I'm not counting simple grammar checking tools and such -- but if a tool is rewriting and changing the voice of a text, then I'd prefer people not use it. I certainly won't.