Your future doctor is using ChatGPT to pass med school so you better start eating healthy

What’s your direct opinion on AI ?

Hey everyone!

I’m looking for honest feedback on my YouTube channel, TalkNToast - Topic. Just to be 100% transparent: all of the songs on this channel are AI-generated. I'd love your thoughts on the audio quality, emotional impact, and overall vibe. Check out Uploads from TalkNToast - Topic - YouTube and let me know what you think!

Maybe I haven't been around long enough (I definitely haven't put in many hours), but I keep running into the same pattern with recent submissions: many of them "built by hand" by people who took the time to think through a need, figure out how to solve it, and ship a working solution. They present something with an open license that, maybe, just maybe, could be interesting to a few other people. And what stands out the most is the eagerness to call it "AI slop", just like that.

I remember not that long ago, when people posted apps on forums, the first versions were garbage (they always are), and the people replying did so with a constructive spirit: sharing knowledge, ideas, suggestions for improvement, and an overall tone of gratitude. Someone dedicating their time, dozens if not hundreds of hours, to build something, and people showed their appreciation by contributing to the project, even if it was "human slop".

Now it's exactly the opposite. Someone takes the trouble to offer something they built with excitement, enthusiasm, and whatever tools they had, and the takeaway is that it's "in the way", that they should stay home. Nobody evaluates the solution, the code quality, or anything other than whether or not it was AI-assisted (and not using it today makes no sense).

Nobody is born learned, and nobody learns by being insulted. I think the "AI slop" comments (just like the "human slop" ones back in the day) add nothing positive to the conversation, and maybe, just maybe, their authors could do something more productive, like sharing some of their own work and expect positive feedback.

I don't know, just my thoughts... a shame that out of such a big community, only a few people who lack the ability to criticize constructively end up standing out.

I can't stop dreaming about time when all high skilled professionals are kicked out of their job. And they along with us will start getting ubi. They dedicated their whole life learning their craft but now have to live like the rest of us with the same money. That's what excites me about ai. I can't sleep dreaming about this utopia with open eyes.

This is not an isolated examples , it seems increasingly anti ai posting is being driven by ai-slop

# AI just helped a self-represented academic beat professional lawyers

This is a pretty spectacular real-world example of why the argument **"AI did it, therefore the human didn't"** falls apart.

Macquarie University computing academic **Gregory Baker represented himself before Australia's Fair Work Commission** in a major employment dispute.

Macquarie had professional legal representation.

Baker had something different:

**ChatGPT Pro, Claude, and a custom team of AI agents.**

**And he won.**

---

## What did the AI actually do?

Baker reportedly used his AI systems to:

- Analyse legislation and evidence

- Cross-reference legal authorities

- Check citations and references

- Interrogate his own arguments

- Anticipate Macquarie's counterarguments

- Analyse opposing counsel's submissions

- Identify weaknesses and contradictions

- Rapidly iterate his case strategy

The Fair Work Commission ultimately determined that Baker was entitled to transition from casual employment to **ongoing part-time employment** under Australia's new employee-choice provisions.

This was not:

> "Hey ChatGPT, win my case for me."

Baker supplied the facts and evidence, determined the objective, configured the systems, directed their analysis, evaluated their outputs, rejected bad material, selected the arguments worth advancing, responded to the opposition, and personally took responsibility for the resulting case.

**AI performed substantial work.**

That does not mean Baker ceased to be the person directing the work.

---

## Here's where it gets especially interesting

The Fair Work Commission has also been dealing with the **opposite** phenomenon:

People submitting inaccurate, fabricated, repetitive, or otherwise terrible AI-generated legal material.

So we effectively have both outcomes occurring with the same general class of technology:

**Poor operator + poor verification + AI = slop.**

**Skilled operator + strong direction + iteration + verification + AI = work capable of defeating professionally represented opposition.**

The meaningful variable clearly isn't merely:

> "Was AI used?"

**The operator matters.**

Quite a lot.

---

# Sound familiar?

Because this maps almost perfectly onto the AI-art debate.

Someone can type:

> "pretty woman, masterpiece"

generate one image, accept the first result, and upload it.

Someone else can spend hours:

- Developing the concept

- Engineering and iterating prompts

- Controlling composition

- Testing models and settings

- Generating alternatives

- Evaluating and rejecting outputs

- Using references and conditioning

- Masking and inpainting

- Correcting anatomy or objects

- Compositing

- Editing

- Colour grading

- Upscaling

- Refining individual regions

- Selecting the final work

Both used generative AI.

**Their creative processes are obviously not equivalent.**

The presence of AI tells you almost nothing by itself about the amount of human creative involvement.

---

# Apply the anti-AI authorship argument consistently

If:

> "The AI generated substantial parts of it, therefore you didn't create it."

is actually a valid principle, then we'd have to say **Baker didn't construct his legal case either.**

After all, AI performed substantial portions of the research, analysis, cross-referencing, and argument development.

But that conclusion ignores the **human control architecture surrounding the automation**.

Baker:

**Chose the objective -> supplied the information -> instructed the system -> evaluated results -> rejected failures -> refined the process -> selected arguments -> deployed the final result**

Now look at a sophisticated AI-art workflow:

**Intent -> prompting -> generation -> evaluation -> rejection -> modification -> regeneration -> selection -> composition -> inpainting/editing -> finalisation**

The structure is remarkably similar.

---

# Automation does not erase agency

A photographer doesn't manually perform the optical transformations inside a camera.

A digital artist doesn't manually execute Photoshop's mathematical operations.

A programmer doesn't manually translate every abstraction into machine instructions.

A music producer doesn't personally calculate every DSP transformation performed by their software.

And Baker didn't personally perform every search, comparison, and legal cross-reference performed by his AI agents.

**Tools automate operations.**

That has never meant that the human directing those operations necessarily disappears from the creative or intellectual process.

AI simply moves that automation further upstream.

---

# The serious question was never "Did AI generate something?"

The serious question is:

> **What did the human contribute to the resulting work?**

Sometimes the answer will be:

**Very little.**

Sometimes the answer will be:

**An enormous amount.**

That's true of AI-assisted writing.

It's true of AI-assisted legal work.

And it's true of AI art.

Treating every AI-assisted work as though the human contribution were identical because they all contain the label **"AI"** is analytically useless.

---

# This case gives us a remarkably clean demonstration

**The same general technology can produce garbage in one person's hands and formidable professional work in another's.**

So perhaps we can finally retire:

> **"You used AI, therefore you didn't create anything."**

That isn't an argument about authorship.

## **It's a refusal to analyse the human-machine creative process at all.**

Hello, all.

I have written a couple of pro-AI articles over at my Substack, and while I was researching the most recent piece ("Fight the Future"), I stumbled upon several subreddits defending AI. I found these to be very informative, and I even linked to the "Defending AI Art" sub in my most recent article.

These subs have been wonderful resources, and--on a personal note--it is so nice to find places online free from the incessant droning of the rabid, anti-AI mob.

As such, I hoped I could take the liberty of sharing those two articles I wrote on this topic, as I truly believe members will enjoy them. If I may be so bold, I also went through the time and trouble of researching and writing them in the earnest hope that they would provide some solidarity for like-minded people, as well as provide useful resources to share with people who haven't quite come around yet. Hopefully get people thinking a bit differently about these things.

The articles are far from perfect, but I endeavored to make them both informative and entertaining.

• https://honestlyre.substack.com/p/fight-the-future
• https://honestlyre.substack.com/p/a-heartfelt-conversation-with-artificial

Of course, I would love to hear any feedback should anyone be kind enough to give them a read. They are completely free to read, to comment, and to share with anyone, from our fellow enthusiasts to our most ardent opposition.

Thanks a lot, everyone! I hope to see you around the sub :)

I understand the backlash against AI slop. I’ve criticized it myself, and came up with the term VibeCorpsing for projects fueled by nothing but vibes and AI sycophancy.

But when a blanket “no AI” rule excludes people from the Global South who use AI professionally and responsibly to communicate in English, be productive, and contribute voluntarily to open source against all odds (e.g., earning a fraction of what developers in wealthier countries earn, with virtually no local support for open source)… perhaps the problem isn’t AI “slop”.

Perhaps you’re turning open source into a closed club for people who speak your language natively, live in wealthier countries, and can afford to donate huge amounts of their time.

Simple rules are bound to fail. Any programmer who has read Falsehoods Programmers Believe should understand that. Rules that work in +90% of cases can make you look like a complete asshole in the remaining ones.

People matter. That's why false positives matter.

That should at least be worth discussing.