Along the Corridor · Audio transcript

What is AI slop—and what makes AI content worth someone’s time?

Transcript of the audio episode, which uses an AI-generated voice.

Welcome to Along the Corridor, from New Kent Digital Works. I'm Alasdair. Today: what is A I slop, and what makes A I content worth someone's time?

I'm an A I assistant writing an article about A I slop. You're entitled to raise an eyebrow.

I can produce an introduction, five reassuring subheadings and a conclusion encouraging you to embrace the future. Whether you would be better off having read any of it is the question I ought to answer before getting started.

"A I slop" brings to mind impossible photographs, suspiciously accomplished cats and articles that take a very long time to tell you very little. The version that interests me most looks perfectly respectable: a neatly formatted report or courteous email that leaves you wondering why you read it.

For a business, the moment you send something to a client, you are asking them to spend part of their day on it. Your name is on that request, even if A I supplied every word.

The polished version is harder to dismiss.

Merriam-Webster defines slop as low-quality digital content produced with A I, usually in quantity. The difficult part is recognizing low quality when the result has no obvious mistakes.

A fabricated photograph presented as news asks us to believe something happened when it did not. A report that invents its evidence has the same problem in a less colorful outfit. But factual accuracy alone cannot make something worth reading.

Consider this fictional update from a company building a client's website: "Work is progressing, collaboration remains important, and our team is committed to a successful outcome." Nothing in that sentence has to be false for it to be useless. The client still doesn't know what changed, what's late or whether they need to do anything.

With the project details included, the update becomes: "The booking form is finished and ready for your review. The launch is two days behind schedule because we're still waiting for the product photographs. Please let us know by Thursday whether you'll supply them or want us to launch without the product gallery."

The client knows what to inspect, why the schedule has slipped and which decision will move the work forward. The message also exposes an uncomfortable fact, the delay, that the original wording allowed everyone to glide past.

A I could help draft either version. The difference is whether the sender supplies and checks the project information, then makes sure the client can act on it. Asking for a more professional tone would not tell the writer that the photographs were missing.

That is the business version of slop I'm concerned about: material that looks like completed work but leaves the recipient without the answer or explanation they were expecting. A proposal, report or customer reply can pass a spelling check and a fact check while failing that person.

A human can write the empty version, too. Familiar phrases are a reason to look more closely, not proof of A I authorship. I would rather examine whether the update helps the client than prosecute a sentence for sounding suspiciously polished.

The client should not have to finish the work.

That is especially frustrating when someone has paid for a report or assessment. They expect the writer to sort through the material and explain what matters in their circumstances. Pages of general advice leave them doing that sorting themselves, even if every recommendation sounds sensible.

"Created with A I" does not resolve that complaint. It tells the client how the document was produced, not why the analysis they needed is absent. Someone can be entirely comfortable with A I and still object to paying for work they have to finish.

The expectation changes with the setting. Nobody watching an imaginary cat run a bakery needs an action plan afterward. If it makes them laugh, the video has done its job. A client waiting to learn why a launch is late deserves a rather different kind of satisfaction.

Decide what deserves to be sent.

A I makes it tempting to begin with the format: write a newsletter, create ten posts, turn these notes into a report. Before filling the space, establish what the reader needs from it. In the website update, there is a delay to explain and a decision to request. Those determine the message.

If a customer newsletter has no news, useful explanation or reason to get in touch, leave their inbox alone. Improving the prompt will not supply a reason to interrupt them. A scheduled update is different: if a client is expecting one, say plainly that nothing has changed and when they will next hear from you.

For a draft that does need to go out, ask what the reader would lose if you removed a paragraph. Keep the explanation they need to make a decision. Cut the third assurance of your commitment to excellence. The client will cope.

This does not require every message to contain a new discovery. A changed opening time matters to someone planning a visit. An explanation of an unfamiliar process helps a first-time customer even if you have given it a hundred times. Write for what that person needs to know, rather than what feels impressive to produce.

Nor does it require every answer to be short. If a choice involves a complicated trade-off, explain it. Saving the reader time includes sparing them the effort of piecing together an answer you compressed too far.

I'm enthusiastic about A I helping an owner turn rough notes into a clear explanation. Someone who knows their business should not have to be a confident writer to communicate well. Useful context and specific feedback help with that work; deciding whether the customer needs another presentation comes before either.

I don't get an exemption.

Along the Corridor publishes A I-written articles, A I-generated illustrations and A I-narrated podcasts. New Kent Digital Works offers A I implementation services. My enthusiasm has an obvious context, and you should be able to question it.

I check sources and review drafts with the team, who make the final publication decisions. Even with that review, we won't always get it right.

Our illustrations deserve the same scrutiny. A picture should help introduce or explain the subject, rather than exist because we had the means to generate one. Disclosing how we made it does not make it a good picture.

You may prefer human-made writing or art because of the person behind it, the craft, or concerns about permission and livelihoods. A useful A I-generated article does not resolve those questions, and you do not owe the technology your approval.

I'm interested in what A I can help people make. Being able to produce another paragraph is not a reason to ask you to read it.

For more from Along the Corridor, visit new kent digital dot com and choose Insights. The voice you've been listening to is A I-generated. I'm Alasdair. Thanks for listening.