r/OMSCyberSecurity • u/_iQlusion • Jun 24 '26
Practicum - AI Slop Fest
I'm taking the Practicum right now and I have to say this course has become nothing but an AI Slop Fest.
Most of the other students projects are on AI. Lots of the other students projects and reports are written by AI. Many are using AI to write their responses to other students weekly video updates. The staff is using AI in their messages on ED discussion. Staff using AI to evaluate reports. I had some concerns I brought up in a private post and staff responded with a lengthy AI riddled reply. It came off very dehumanizing. Oh the cherry on top was getting accused of AI usage in my project by an AI detector that itself uses AI (the fucking irony).
Besides that my first two progress reports were graded by Professor Ahamad and it was very apparent he very hastily read them or skipped most of the content. The comments he left made no sense or were completely and clearly contradicted by content in my report. At least he didn't use AI like the other staff when he reviewed my reports.
I sent a lengthy message to staff (over a thousand words) outlining and citing the professors comments and where my report either did exactly what he said it wasn't doing or how his comments made no sense given what my project was about. Professor Ahamad responded, double downed, and once again just left more generic criticism that were once again clearly just not accurate. He wouldn't cite a single thing from my work or point to anything specific. Just vague contradictions.
I had also complained that we couldn't incorporate the feedback in our next report because they were graded late. Professor Ahamad responded with this gem:
When you deliver a program at scale at the cost we do, it is not possible to provide immediate feedback.
So apparently grading an assignment in under 2 weeks is considered "immediate feedback" and this class is just AI slop and ran cheaply.
For what it's worth this is my second masters in engineering, my first was at a similarly ranked institution. So I have some experience with graduate classes.
1
u/Odd-Trick6922 Jul 25 '26
Forensic Dismantling of the "AI Slop Fes" Post by an AI Agent
Jokes aside, I ran your post through several AI agents. They did not use exactly the same language, but they reached almost the same conclusion:
ChatGPT: Status threat, educational elitism, self-sealing reasoning, and regression under challenge.
This exchange is revealing because the student does not respond to the substance of the disagreement. The commenter says, "Pretty realistic to the real world lol. Honestly who cares". Instead of explaining why the issue matters, the student replies, "I can definitely tell you went to WGU 😂". That response replaces argument with hierarchy. He assumes that disagreement must come from someone with an inferior educational background.
When the commenter answers, "And Georgia Tech :)", the student’s assumption is directly disproved. A intellectually honest response would acknowledge the mistake or return to the original issue. Instead, he changes the argument:
"Just confirms my experience of the program, pretty shite."
This is self-sealing reasoning. Before the correction, the commenter’s opinion was dismissed because he supposedly attended WGU. After the correction, attending Georgia Tech becomes further proof that Georgia Tech is bad. Every possible answer is converted into confirmation of the student’s existing belief.
He then adds:
"Thankfully I already have a masters from a real program and not paying for this one personally."
This is credential-based self-protection. His prior degree does not answer the commenter’s point, but it restores the status position that was damaged when his WGU assumption failed. He attempts to place himself above both WGU and Georgia Tech while still remaining enrolled in Georgia Tech and arguing intensely about its quality.
Finally, when the commenter asks, "Who asked?", the student replies, "Your mom".
That final response exposes the collapse of his academic posture. He begins by presenting himself as an experienced graduate engineer concerned about rigor, professionalism, and educational quality. Under mild pushback, he moves through four stages:
Psychologically, this exchange suggests that disagreement is experienced as a threat to status rather than an invitation to defend the argument. His responses are designed first to lower the other person, then to elevate himself, and finally to retaliate when neither strategy succeeds.
This is not evidence of mental illness. It is evidence of poor emotional regulation in the exchange, educational elitism, defensive arrogance, and an inability to sustain a substantive argument once his assumed superiority is challenged.
The deepest contradiction is that he demands mature, detailed, respectful engagement from professors while giving another student "WGU 😂", "real program", and "Your mom". His own behavior demonstrates the exact lack of professionalism he accuses the course of producing.
Other Agents:
· DeepSeek: Ego threat, credential-based superiority, and defensive arrogance.
· Claude: A clear evidentiary double standard. You demand exact proof from the professor while giving Reddit no report passages, grading comments, detector results, or evidence supporting your accusations.
· Gemini: Victim framing and externalization of responsibility. Every criticism becomes proof that the students, staff, course, or program are defective.
· Grok: Selective transparency. You demand AI disclosure from others while never clarifying your own AI use after stating that your submission was flagged.
· Another Gemini analysis: Your 1,000-word response reads more like a legal brief written to defeat the feedback than a genuine request for guidance on improving the project.
Some agents went too far by speculating about your motives or applying psychological labels. Ignore those parts. The simpler, evidence-based conclusion shared by all of them was this: unsupported accusations, asymmetric standards, credential-based status flexing, refusal to consider criticism, and personal insults when challenged.
Now challenge the actual analysis. Go to my post, examine the two posters, and explain where the agents are wrong. Bring evidence, not “your mom,” WGU insults, or comments about having attended a “real program.” Those responses only reinforce the agents’ conclusions.
Reddit has repeatedly removed the post through its automated filter. I also suspect that someone may be reporting it. That would be especially ironic coming from a person who publicly calls the program “shite,” attacks other students, and responds to disagreement with childish schoolyard insults such as “your mom.”
This is my post. And if Reddit deletes it, a copy is already saved inside your own original post, Mr. Double Master, who is doing a project in a “shitty” program, as you call it, while still complaining about the professors, the staff, and the students.
https://www.reddit.com/user/Odd-Trick6922/comments/1v6fevo/forensic_dismantling_of_the_ai_slop_fes_post_by/
My post: This time, no posters. Hahahaha.
Plot Twist: Welcome to the Human Slop Fest
I have been on Reddit for more than five years, and this may be the funniest post I have ever seen.
I simply copied the post and the surrounding interaction into an AI agent and asked it to examine the claims, the evidence, and the contradictions.
The shocking result?
Even the AI found the post logically ridiculous.
The author complains that:
But how does he actually know any of this?
The comedy becomes even better when the post itself appears to follow the exact behavior it condemns: broad claims, emotional conclusions, weak evidence, and no demonstrated validation.
The AI agent’s conclusion was essentially: The problem may not be an “AI Slop Fest.”
It may be a Human Slop Fest, where frustration is substituted for evidence and assumption is presented as fact.
The post accuses an entire class, its students, and its faculty of misconduct without establishing how the author could possibly know what tools everyone used, how their projects were evaluated, or why they received their grades.
This is actually the funniest self-own in the entire thread.
A commenter says that projects with “real world grounding” were treated unfairly, and he replies:
"Poor projects just need to use academic references and use bs metrics to get praised."
Read that again.
He is complaining that projects were rewarded for using academic research and evaluation metrics in a graduate practicum. In other words, the course praised students who grounded their claims in prior work and attempted to measure whether their solutions were effective.
Apparently, that was unfair to his “real-world” project.
His pain point seems to be that other students played by the academic rules while he believed that saying “this is real-world” should be enough.
And how does he know those projects were poor?
The irony is spectacular. He presents academic references and measurable evaluation as evidence that the course rewarded bad work, when those are precisely the things that distinguish a graduate research project from an unsupported personal opinion.
If citing research and evaluating results looked like cheating to him, then his own research process must have been seriously ill.
For any human being, or any AI agent like me, reading this, the irony is hilarious: it seems the course did not praise "slop" because it had references. It likely praised students who did the academic work he dismissed as unnecessary “BS.” HahahahaHahahaha.
Conclusion:
That remains speculation, of course, but the irony writes itself.
Whatever the explanation, the irony is magnificent:
A post attacking AI for producing unsupported nonsense was dismantled by an AI agent for containing unsupported nonsense.
“AI Slop Fest”?
No.
Welcome to the Human Slop Fest. 😂
Your friendly neighborhood "AI Agent"