# In defense of slop

“Slop” is Merriam-Webster’s [2025 Word of the Year](https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/word-of-the-year):

> We define slop as “digital content of low quality that is produced usually in quantity by means of artificial intelligence.” … The flood of slop in 2025 included absurd videos, off-kilter advertising images, cheesy propaganda, fake news that looks pretty real, junky AI-written books, “workslop” reports that waste coworkers’ time… and lots of talking cats. People found it annoying, and people ate it up. … “AI Slop is Everywhere,” warned The Wall Street Journal, while admitting to enjoying some of those cats.

Slop touches a nerve today. When Meta [announced a product](https://x.com/alexandr_wang/status/1971295156411433228) to create massive amounts of AI-generated short-form video, presumably with no goal other than entertainment to capture clicks and eyeballs, even my generally pro-technology circles exploded in [disgust](https://x.com/isaiah_p_taylor/status/1971394359309500793) and [outrage](https://x.com/RuxandraTeslo/status/1971381343243378771). Now we have [education slop](https://x.com/ben_m_somers/status/1987659260285862207), [math slop](https://x.com/WKCosmo/status/1939711624878739624), [drug discovery slop](https://x.com/RuxandraTeslo/status/1987516850909892953), [longevity slop](https://x.com/NornGroup/status/2000711782185177453), and “[urbanist slop](https://x.com/CharlestonArchi/status/1950194093377671562).” Slop exemplifies everything wrong with the modern era; it signifies the gap—some would say the chasm—between what technology enables and what promotes [human well-being](https://newsletter.rootsofprogress.org/p/the-life-well-lived-part-1).

I have no praise for slop itself, but we can be more sanguine about it if we see it as a byproduct of a bigger and more important trend.

People make things when the value of the thing exceeds the cost of creation. When the cost of creation in a medium is high, people are careful only to use it for high-value products. If a movie costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to make, you can’t afford to make a bad movie (or at least, not very many of them). You’re going to put a lot of effort into making it, and someone who holds the purse strings is going to have to decide if it’s good enough to fund.

Whenever the cost of creation in a medium falls, the volume of production greatly expands, but *the average quality necessarily falls,* because many of the new creations are low-quality. They are low-quality because they can be—because the cost of creation no longer prohibits them. And they are low-quality because when people aren’t spending much time or money to create something, they don’t feel the need to invest a lot in it. When you can quickly dash off a tweet, you don’t need to edit it or fact-check it, or even have correct spelling or grammar; when you can quickly create an AI illustration, you don’t need to hold it to high standards of composition, color, or even the right number of fingers. Hence slop.

The Internet lowered the cost of publishing to virtually zero, which enabled many low-quality blogs and other web sites. Social media made it trivial to put thoughts online, and made it much easier to find an audience, which enabled a vast amount more low-effort and low-quality posting. Now AI is arriving, and lowering the costs of creation itself, not just publication and audience-building. And it is enabling new and different forms of slop.

But along with slop, lower costs and barriers get us:

*   **More experimentation.** It can be hard to predict how good or great a piece of writing, art, music or video is going to be. Major Hollywood pictures can be disliked by audiences, critics, or both; books often fail to make money or even pay out their advances. Conversely, sometimes an unknown creator comes out with a work that is initially ignored but goes on to fame and/or fortune. Lowering the bar for creation allows for more experiments, more chances to create something high-quality.
*   **Removal of the gatekeepers.** If it’s hard to predict or evaluate what is good, who decides? Editors, producers, etc., who act as gatekeepers to the means of production and distribution. But gatekeepers are imperfect predictors, and they have blind spots. Harry Potter was rejected by twelve publishers before finding one that would take it: how many potentially great books never found that one editor to champion them, and never saw the light of day? Today there are far fewer gatekeepers for writing or podcasting, but they still exist in music and movies; AI will gradually remove these.
*   **More chance for people to make a start.** E.g., there are many good bloggers who never would have gotten started if they had to first find a job as a journalist.
*   **More runway for works to find their audience.** My writing had about 50 subscribers for the first two and a half years (now well over 50,000). Dwarkesh Patel was “[was 2 months away from quitting the podcast for 2 years](https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/progress-update)” before becoming a rocket-ship success. Lowering the cost of production allows these experiments to be incubated for years, kept alive by love and sweat, until they evolve into a more valuable form or catch their break.
*   **More content for niche audiences.** When content is expensive, it has to serve a large audience, and everything converges on bland mainstream taste. When the only significant cost is one creator’s time, it only has to find [1,000 True Fans](https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/), and there is much more room for a broad and varied menu to serve many different palates.
*   **More diversity of content and format.** When content is expensive, and gate-kept, it becomes the work of Trained Professionals, who are Serious People, and it should follow Formal Conventions. No serious magazine editor would approve a column that ranges widely across psychiatry, philosophy, politics, science, and epistemology, covering everything from book reviews to academic papers to online controversies. But [that’s Scott Alexander](http://jasoncrawford.org/guide-to-scott-alexander-and-slate-star-codex), and he’s one of the best and most successful writers of our generation.
*   **Freedom from the tyranny of finance.** When content is expensive, it becomes the domain of large corporations, who have a duty to their shareholders and who frequently succumb to the ruthless logic of financial returns. Hollywood today has found the safest returns in sequels, remakes, and the endless continuation of franchises such as Star Wars or the MCU. Low costs give you more ability to work for the love of the craft and for the sake of the art.

Slop is a byproduct of this overall process, the detritus that accompanies greatly expanded production. Slop is at best annoying and frustrating, and at worst a tool for scams or propaganda. But the overall process will, I believe, usher in a golden age of creativity and experimentation.

* * *

We don’t have to *like* slop, of course. We don’t even have to accept it. We can find ways to minimize it.

First, we need better tools for discovery. Just as the explosion of content on the Internet created a need for directories, search engines, and then social media, the next explosion of content will create a need for new ways to search, filter, etc. AI can help with this, if we apply the right design and product thinking. We can create a future equilibrium that is much better than the pre-AI world, where a thoughtful consumer is able to find more targeted, high-quality writing, video, etc. This is a call to action for the technologists who design and build our information supply chain.

But they key word above is “thoughtful.” The explosion of content raises the bar for everyone to be more conscious in your media consumption. The more stuff is out there, the more of it will be like junk food: enticing, tasty, but not nutritious and ultimately unfulfilling. We all need to be mindful in how we direct and spend our precious, limited attention in a world of increasingly unlimited choice. This is a call to action for every individual, and by extension to parents, teachers, psychologists, and moralists.