263
no slop grenade: Stop throwing AI-generated walls of text into conversations
(noslopgrenade.com)
this post was submitted on 22 May 2026
263 points (97.5% liked)
Fuck AI
7128 readers
1475 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's an anti-essay essay, it was obvious that they were making a surface level joke if you're not looking for reasons to be outraged.
It should have been very clear to you what they meant, since the person clarified what they meant 8 hours before your comment and that comment was, literally, 2 comments under mine.
It is hypocritical, bordering on ironic, to condescend about reading comprehension while ignoring the very thread you are participating in.
Their comment said:
My argument is: "The irony doesn't hold because the topic is too specific."
If the OP wrote an essay about how they hate essays, that would be ironic. But they wrote about a very specific type they hate, so the irony doesn't apply any more, unless they had an AI generate it and posted it to their work channel.
Weren't you the one that pulled "They just hate that you don't trash AI" from literally nowhere?
The comments preceding yours said the same thing I'm saying. Nobody ever accused anyone of being pro-AI or whatever, the whole conversation was about whether the different type of post in a different mediums qualifies as ironic.
Then you came swinging in, reading things into the text for no reason. That's not even ignoring the thread so much as fabricating an entire separate one.
This is just tedious
The irony they were referring to was a person writing an essay against essays, that's it. It doesn't require deep analysis. It was obvious what they meant when they wrote it and they have explicitly clarified that point.
Here is the commentor explicitly saying what they were referring to:
Pointing out all of the ways that the two situations are dissimilar doesn't change what the person was referring to when they wrote their comment.
You can't inject your own meaning and intent into the words that someone else wrote nor is irony some objectively defined category. If someone finds something funny, you can't come along and tell them all of the ways that they are wrong.
Here, this is what your role this conversation looks like to me.
It wasn't from 'literally' nowhere, it was literally from my mind.
Do you not know what 'literally' means? You actually mean figuratively.
Also, it wasn't 'pulled' because sentence formation actually comes from pre-conciousness so it would actually be pushed instead of pulled.
(See how tedious it is?)
Shall we continue?
(I'm going to choose to read this literally, and not in the way that you intended it.)
There have certainly been people throughout recent history that have accused someone of being pro-AI. So when you say 'nobody ever' you're actually wrong because there have been many accusations of being pro-AI on social media.
(What you intended when you wrote that is irrelevant if I can find a way of framing your words that lets me make you sound wrong.)
As far as what you meant, yes someone fabricate a 'pro-AI' stance out of thin air.:
I'm done writing essays on the irony of, or lack thereof, complaining about people complaining about people complaining about essays.
I understood that. I acknowledged that. I don't think the original contention missed that either. I don't think all the people affirming that contention did. I think most of us here understand that it's intended to be a superficial joke.
I disagree that it's ironic, for reasons mentioned before. I don't think the word applies here. I don't think the joke works. And apparently, so do many others.
Irony doesn't have to have a single objective definition – that's not how language works anyway – for me to be able to argue that my understanding of the word doesn't fit this case. If language is a consensus construct, all the other people thinking the same kinda back that argument up.
Funny and ironic are different things. "Not ironic, but still funny" is a point I can and will not contest.
You could just agree to disagree.
I did miss that "pro-AI" allegation at the time of writing my original comment, but it doesn't change the fact that the original contention that we keep going back and forth over wasn't about AI but simply about the definition of irony. We're not (initially) "dogpiling" on them for not hating AI, but for making a joke we don't think works.