With analogy being made to pre 1945 “low background steel“ which was uncontaminated from radiation so it could be used in high accuracy measuring equipment.
I’m probably going to have to learn about AI (been resisting), but this site is a non-biased source for how to navigate this new environment.
I’m probably going to have to learn about AI (been resisting)
Sorry to inform you, but resistance is futile. 
But on a serious note, I’m not entirely sure I can articulate why, but I find it troubling that we’re being swamped with artificial content. Yes, humans produce plenty of slop, but at least it’s human slop.
There’s something disquieting about living in a world where so much of what we read, see, and hear is—or soon will be—entirely or substantially artificially generated. That feels diminishing somehow.
I do not wish to live in a plastic world.
Don’t resist! AI as a technology, broadly understood, is an interesting field of inquiry in and of itself. The more you know about its history, its key technological components, and its capabilities the better you can cut through the hype.
Generative AI tools can be useful. I ask Claude to help me craft regular expressions for particularly tricky situations. I have several NotebookLM projects set up to help me engage with collections of texts and notes on topics I’m researching. I wouldn’t ask a chatbot to generate timeless prose, but they all do a fine job paring back a too-long document to something leaner and snappier when that’s what you need.
Like any tool, you do have to learn how to use them, though. As is the case with PKM, the internet is jam-packed with people who want to show you how.
Also, they can be just plain fun.
For me, it’s that the content is entirely derivative. Of course, a lot of human generated “content” (scare quotes because I hate the term but can’t think of a ready alternative) is derivative too: see the insta_repeat Instagram account for examples (very painful ones for this amateur photographer 
). But there’s always the prospect that the human perpetrator might, in the process of imitating what they’ve already seen or read or heard, might find their way to crafting something genuinely original.
I still think that the AI boom shows every sign of being a “bubble”. Given the investment of time, money, political commitment and intellect, I kind of hope that I am wrong but I can’t cope with the assumption that some quite intractable problems with it will be solved by iteration or alternatively that “something will turn up”.
“Human slop” usually comes with context: you often have enough cues to recognise where it is from, what its purpose and status is and what (if any) resonances it is aiming for. That’s not always easy and not always done, but we can often recognise fiction from non-fiction, serious news from social media, past writing from present comment. When I try LLM AI that’s often what’s missing: everything is stated with confidence and there’s never any self-doubt, critical or simply humble self-examination or even hesitation - all of which are an essential component of humanity (and where they are missing something has gone badly wrong)
If not genuinely original, at least in their authentic voice and thinking.
There is no self-doubt or self-examination because there is no “self.” There is no humility because there is no conscience—no inner life of any kind. AI, like the tools in my toolbox, has its helpful uses. I use it as a super editor and, at times, for ideation. But when it comes to writing, it produces hollow, statistically driven, derivative content—words without soul.
In other contexts—such as assisting with medical diagnoses or developing new medicines—AI may be, or may become, phenomenally helpful. But in the realm of creative expression, AI is like placing a paintbrush in the hands of an assembly line robot. It may assemble parts, but it does not create beauty.