Linux

AI text as a whole is usually structured, neutral-positive to positive shallowness. It's called slop because it's easy to make a lot of substanceless, nutrientless goo. One common structure is

Introduction

Since the dawn of time, ethics has been important.

AI Structure: Hidden Secrets Revealed

1. Being considerate: Being considerate can help relationships.
2. This structure: is untrustworthy. Be suspicious when you see it.
3. Lots of broad statements: that don't say anything—often with em-dashes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while ethics can be hard, it is important to follow your organizations guidelines. Remember, ethics isn't just about safety, but about the human spirit.

What do we spot? Sets of three, zero grammar mistakes (but useless grammar structures are allowed, but these are harder to spot), uncreative colon titles, SEO-style intros and conclusions, an odd corporate-style ethics hangup, em-dashes (the long —), and some of the stuff in that reddit link I mentioned are often giveaways.

Here's some examples in the wild:

• Playing Dumb: How Arthur Schopenhauer Explains the Benefits of Feigned Ignorance. PeopleAndMedia. has useless headings and the colon structure I mentioned. There's also phrases like "Let's delve" and "unexpected advantage" -- ChatGPT likes pretending to be unconventional and has specific diction tics like "Here's to a bright future!" One interesting thing is that the article uses some block quotes and links -- this is rare for AI.

• Why is PHP Used. robots.net. This is from a "slop site", one that is being overrun by AI articles. Don't read the whole thing, it's too long. Skim first. See how many paragraphs start with words like "additionally", "moreover", "furthermore", like a grade school English lit student? Furthermore (lol), look at the reasonings used:

  The size of the PHP developer community is a testament to the language’s popularity and longevity.

  PHP boasts a large and vibrant developer community that plays a pivotal role in its continued success and widespread adoption.

  ChatGPT-esque vocabulary is used (this is something you unfortunately get a feel for), and the reasoning isn't very committal. Instead of evaluating some specific event deeper, the article just lists technologies and says stuff like "PHP has comprehensive and well-maintained documentation, providing in-depth explanations, examples, and guides." So what if there's docs? Everyone has documentation. Name something PHP docs do better or worse. Look at this paragraph (SKIM IT, don't read deeply):

  CodeIgniter is known for its simplicity and speed. It is a lightweight framework that prioritizes performance and efficiency. CodeIgniter’s small footprint makes it suitable for small to medium-sized projects where speed is crucial. It provides essential features and a straightforward structure that allows developers to build applications quickly and efficiently.

  It doesn't actually SAY ANYTHING despite its length. The paragraph can be compressed to: "CodeIgniter has a light footprint". It doesn't even say whether we're talking about comparative speed, memory usage, or startup time. It's like they paid someone (openAI) to pad word count on the ensmallening I mentioned.

Before reading something, check the date. If it's after 2020, skims to be too long and not very deep, and has too many GPT tics (tricolons, vocab like "tapestry/delve", the SEO shit structure), then it's AI slop. Some readers actively avoid post-2020 articles but I can't relate.