There is a phrase being thrown around a lot at the moment:
“AI slop.”
And to be fair, I understand why.
There is a huge amount of lazy AI content being published. Generic articles. Bland social media posts. Fake expertise. Recycled advice. Text that sounds polished but says nothing.
You can often feel it when you read it.
There is no real opinion behind it.
No lived experience.
No specific example.
No point of view.
No sense that a human being actually cared about the subject.
So yes, poor AI-generated content is a real problem.
But I think the reaction has gone too far.
We now seem to be reaching a point where some people see any involvement of AI and immediately dismiss the result as worthless. The moment they suspect AI has helped with the writing, they shout “AI slop” and stop thinking about the process behind the content.
I think that misses something important.
Because there is a huge difference between using AI to replace your thinking and using AI to express your thinking more clearly.
The Problem Is Not AI Writing. The Problem Is Empty Thinking.
A bad article does not become good just because a human typed every word.
A weak idea is still a weak idea.
A generic opinion is still a generic opinion.
A copied argument is still a copied argument.
The real question should not simply be:
“Did AI help write this?”
The better question is:
“Where did the thinking come from?”
That is the distinction I think we need to make.
There is a big difference between these two approaches:
“Write me a post about why AI is useful.”
And:
“Here is what I believe about AI. Here is the argument I want to make. Here is where I disagree with the common view. Here are my examples. Here is the analogy I want to use. Help me turn this into a clear post.”
Those are not the same thing.
In the first version, AI is being asked to create the substance.
In the second version, the human is supplying the substance and asking AI to help communicate it.
That matters.
AI as Ghostwriter vs AI as Editor
The weakest use of AI is the ghostwriter approach.
That is where someone gives AI a vague instruction and lets it invent the whole thing.
The result often sounds fine on the surface. It has headings. It has structure. It has neat paragraphs. It may even use confident language.
But underneath, there is nothing distinctive.
It is just a smooth version of what has already been said thousands of times.
That is the type of content people are right to criticise.
But there is another way to use AI.
You can use it as an editor, organiser and clarity tool.
You can have a discussion first. You can test your argument. You can push back. You can refine the point. You can explain what you really mean. You can reject weak wording. You can add your own examples. You can keep steering the piece until it says what you wanted to say.
At that point, AI is not replacing the human element.
It is helping the human element come through more clearly.
My Cake Analogy
The way I see it, a lot of people talk about “humanising” AI content as though the human part is something you add at the end.
AI makes the cake, then the human adds a bit of icing.
Maybe you add a personal sentence.
Maybe you change a few words.
Maybe you insert one anecdote to make it feel less robotic.
But that is not the best way to work with AI.
The better method is to put the human ingredients into the cake mixture before it is baked.
That means the post starts with your thinking:
Your opinion.
Your frustration.
Your experience.
Your examples.
Your disagreement.
Your angle.
Your reason for writing the piece in the first place.
Then AI helps organise those ingredients into something readable.
That is very different from producing a bland AI article and trying to decorate it afterwards.
The human element should not be sprinkled on top at the end.
It should be mixed into the foundations.
Why This Matters for People Who Are Not Natural Writers
There is another point here that I think gets overlooked.
Not everyone who has something useful to say is a natural writer.
Some people have strong ideas but struggle to structure them.
Some people can explain something well in conversation but freeze when staring at a blank page.
Some people have years of experience but find it hard to turn that experience into a polished article.
Some people know exactly what they mean, but their first draft comes out messy, repetitive or unclear.
That does not mean their ideas are not valuable.
It means they need help turning those ideas into communication.
That is where AI can be incredibly useful.
For me, this is one of the best uses of tools like ChatGPT.
Not to avoid thinking.
But to make thinking easier to express.
I can discuss an idea naturally. I can explain where I agree, where I disagree, what examples matter, what angle I want to take and what I am really trying to say.
Then AI can help me organise that into a post that is clearer, faster and better structured than I may have produced on my own.
I do not see that as cheating.
I see that as communication.
The Aim of Writing Is to Get the Point Across
Writing is not just the physical act of typing words.
Writing is the process of transferring an idea from one mind to another.
That is the point.
If a post helps the reader understand what I think, why I think it, and how it might apply to them, then the post has done its job.
Of course, there is value in beautiful writing. There is value in craft. There is value in voice.
But for most practical online content, the main aim is clarity.
Did the reader understand the point?
Did the article help them think about something differently?
Did it explain an idea they may not have considered before?
Did it communicate something useful?
If AI helps achieve that, I do not see why that should automatically be dismissed.
The sentence may have been arranged by AI, but the viewpoint can still belong to the human.
A Post Can Be Successful Even If It Does Not Represent the Majority View
This post is a good example.
I know many people disagree with my view.
There are people who believe that if AI generates the finished text, the content is automatically less valuable.
I do not agree.
I believe human-led discussion followed by AI-assisted drafting can be one of the best ways to create useful content.
That may not be the majority view, but that does not make it invalid.
In fact, that is part of the reason to write about it.
A good post does not have to say what everyone already thinks.
Sometimes a good post simply gives your own view some air.
It says:
“This is what I believe. This is the distinction I think people are missing. This is why I see the issue differently.”
If the article does that clearly, then it has succeeded.
The Real Test Is Whether There Is a Real Thought Behind the Content
This is where I think the “AI slop” argument needs to become more precise.
Some AI-assisted content absolutely is slop.
But not because AI was involved.
It is slop because there was no real thought behind it.
No judgement.
No experience.
No argument.
No human direction.
No reason for the piece to exist.
But when a person has genuinely shaped the idea, directed the argument and supplied the perspective, the situation is different.
The human has not disappeared.
The human has moved earlier in the process.
Instead of typing every sentence manually, the human is guiding the thinking, shaping the structure and judging whether the final piece says what they actually mean.
That is not passive automation.
That is active direction.
The Difference Between Lazy AI and Human-Led AI
For me, the dividing line is simple.
Lazy AI says:
“Create me an opinion so I can publish something.”
Human-led AI says:
“Here is my opinion. Help me express it clearly.”
Those are worlds apart.
One is content manufacturing.
The other is assisted communication.
One produces empty text.
The other can help real ideas become publishable.
That is why I think the blanket dismissal of AI-assisted writing is too simplistic.
It looks only at the tool and ignores the process.
Final Thought
There is a lot of bad AI content online, and people are right to be frustrated by it.
But we should be careful not to confuse bad AI use with all AI use.
AI can be used lazily.
AI can be used dishonestly.
AI can be used to flood the internet with generic filler.
But AI can also be used to help someone explain what they genuinely think.
And that matters.
Because if AI helps a person express a real thought more clearly, that is not slop.
That is communication.