I thought this blurb was especially poignant. It’s shocking how quickly and handily a piece of high quality, earnest creation can “pull you out” of mindless algorithm-crawling, at least for a...
And lately, I’ve had this experience when I actually encounter a piece of text where you can really feel the work that has been done to make it do what writing can do best as writing, availing itself of the tools of comparison and metaphor and style and POV that may not be optimized for quick scanning, but that make writing uniquely good… My brain lights up as if I have just bitten into a piece of fruit. As if suddenly realizing, by contrast, that I have been eating exclusively on fruit-flavored candy for some time. “Finally, something with some nutrients!”
I thought this blurb was especially poignant. It’s shocking how quickly and handily a piece of high quality, earnest creation can “pull you out” of mindless algorithm-crawling, at least for a little while.
You hear the term “slop” a lot now. There’s a good reason for that: A lot of janky internet content is being churned out with A.I., and slop is a handy name for this. But there’s another phenomenon—not unconnected, but a little different—that I also think it’s worth getting a handle on. I’ve been thinking about it as “slurry.”
…
Basically, web video is now the most dominant media form, setting the parameters for attention-getting. So, a lot of other things are being sucked into its stream, and in turn having to awkwardly absorb some of its properties, and that amps up the slurry quotient greatly. The “For You Page-ification of everything” that artist Joshua Citarella predicted last year is well underway.
I was really expecting this to be a commentary on the recent trend of trying to manufacture the word "clanker" into a new slur against AI which I have been seeing recently. But the "slur" in...
I was really expecting this to be a commentary on the recent trend of trying to manufacture the word "clanker" into a new slur against AI which I have been seeing recently.
But the "slur" in "enslurrification" actually refers to "slurry".
Nothing about the use of the word "clanker" feels forced to me. Its use as a word for robots and AI has roots in science fiction going back to Metropolis. If anything I would think corporate...
Nothing about the use of the word "clanker" feels forced to me. Its use as a word for robots and AI has roots in science fiction going back to Metropolis.
If anything I would think corporate interests would be against its uses since they're the ones shoving AI garbage into everything.
Man I am so OOTL in this post-reddit world. It feels kind of nice because most of culture is trash, but I do like this clanker word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanker?wprov=sfla1
Man I am so OOTL in this post-reddit world. It feels kind of nice because most of culture is trash, but I do like this clanker word.
I’m not quite sure what this essay is arguing against, since they didn’t give a clear definition of “slurry.” But I’ll defend one form of adaptation: A transcript of a podcast or video isn’t as...
I’m not quite sure what this essay is arguing against, since they didn’t give a clear definition of “slurry.” But I’ll defend one form of adaptation:
A transcript of a podcast or video isn’t as good as a purpose-written essay, but I appreciate it because I like reading text, and if someone posts a video, I probably won’t watch it. To me this is like adding alt text to images - it makes the content more accessible.
So, I’m not a fan of discouraging people from posting transcripts.
There are some people who go a little far in their adaptation, or perhaps not far enough. Sometimes they post articles that seem oddly written because they’re clumsily edited versions of video transcripts. It’s a skill issue. A straightforward transcript would be better.
Which part of the article do you feel supports this sort of discouragement? Because, honestly, it just seems that you actually agree with the author on this point. The article briefly criticized...
I’m not a fan of discouraging people from posting transcripts.
Which part of the article do you feel supports this sort of discouragement? Because, honestly, it just seems that you actually agree with the author on this point.
The article briefly criticized the prevalence and acceptance of transcripts being of poor quality, not of transcription as a practice overall. There’s even a link with an example of exactly what type of sloppiness they are addressing in the text.
And providing a poorly edited transcript is just as much of an accessibility issue when it causes unnecessary and easily avoided complications for those who need them.
I've seen this "slurry" being referred to in conversation as "pink-slime," in reference to Chicken McNuggets. Ex: The Emoji Movie is the pink-slime of American Cinema.
I've seen this "slurry" being referred to in conversation as "pink-slime," in reference to Chicken McNuggets.
Ex: The Emoji Movie is the pink-slime of American Cinema.
I thought this blurb was especially poignant. It’s shocking how quickly and handily a piece of high quality, earnest creation can “pull you out” of mindless algorithm-crawling, at least for a little while.
…
I was really expecting this to be a commentary on the recent trend of trying to manufacture the word "clanker" into a new slur against AI which I have been seeing recently.
But the "slur" in "enslurrification" actually refers to "slurry".
Nothing about the use of the word "clanker" feels forced to me. Its use as a word for robots and AI has roots in science fiction going back to Metropolis.
If anything I would think corporate interests would be against its uses since they're the ones shoving AI garbage into everything.
How do you feel about it? I find its use a bit forced.
Also your out of context interpretation of slurry reminded me of cussy, bussy, etc.
Man I am so OOTL in this post-reddit world. It feels kind of nice because most of culture is trash, but I do like this clanker word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanker?wprov=sfla1
I’m not quite sure what this essay is arguing against, since they didn’t give a clear definition of “slurry.” But I’ll defend one form of adaptation:
A transcript of a podcast or video isn’t as good as a purpose-written essay, but I appreciate it because I like reading text, and if someone posts a video, I probably won’t watch it. To me this is like adding alt text to images - it makes the content more accessible.
So, I’m not a fan of discouraging people from posting transcripts.
There are some people who go a little far in their adaptation, or perhaps not far enough. Sometimes they post articles that seem oddly written because they’re clumsily edited versions of video transcripts. It’s a skill issue. A straightforward transcript would be better.
Which part of the article do you feel supports this sort of discouragement? Because, honestly, it just seems that you actually agree with the author on this point.
The article briefly criticized the prevalence and acceptance of transcripts being of poor quality, not of transcription as a practice overall. There’s even a link with an example of exactly what type of sloppiness they are addressing in the text.
And providing a poorly edited transcript is just as much of an accessibility issue when it causes unnecessary and easily avoided complications for those who need them.
I've seen this "slurry" being referred to in conversation as "pink-slime," in reference to Chicken McNuggets.
Ex: The Emoji Movie is the pink-slime of American Cinema.