AI's Fundamental Issue (And how using AI, hurt my creative skills in the long run)
Hello and welcome to this post.
Ai Slop is becoming more and more potent, these days. From ai-generated images of realistic-looking pokemon shorts on tiktok, to full-blown ai-generated videos, stories and songs, this technology is spreading across the internet. To say that there's been a backlash towards this kind of technology, would be an understatement. Training on copyrighted material, massive use of electricity and water damaging our environment and the use of AI, simply for profit. The list goes on and on.
Companies using AI for profit is nothing new. But recently, Amazon released an AI-GENERATED ENGLISH DUB for a popular anime called "Banana Fis"h. It is just insultingly bad, the voice lines don't match the lips, there's barely any emotion and it is just all around a horrible dub. It's not even a "So bad it's good" kinda thing. It is horrible. Simple as that.
Naturally most people, including this gal, did not like this. And when famous YouTuber MoistCrit1cal made a vide on this, his video got an ai-generated summary of the video. It called his claim "Controversial."
Controversial....Controversy would mean that there is an equal amount of support and opposition. But I did not see a single comment on this video, praising this dub.
This is a big problem, right now. Companies resort to AI, in order to save money and get even more money. For a product that isn't even good!
Now, to those pro-ai people saying that the technology may improve over the years, you are right. AI will improve, I doubt we can do much to stop that.
However. Even if AI-Generated Content becomes one day so good that none of us can tell the difference between human-made and ai-made, there is still a major issue behind AI. Something I will discuss in this post. Please read on, if you are interested.
Fundamental Issues
Now in the past, most people made the argument against ai that AI-generated art doesn't look good. This may have worked back then, but it does not work as easily nowadays. AI-image generators like Gemini for instance, can create art that looks "good". Good enough to possible even fool, the average consumer. As a former AI-Image user (Yes, I did generate AI-slop in the past, I will address that later), I made some stuff that looks outright "Impressive." I won't share any of those images here, because I want to distance myself from them. They were all private and for personal use, none of them were ever posted on any platform. But I digress.
Ai-Images can "look good", nowadays. But why do I say "look good"? Well, because no matter the kind, ai-generated stuff will always never truly be good. Even if the AI could create things as humanly as possible, it will never ever be truly good.
Let me explain.
The way most LLMs work, is that they are trained on data sets. Writing, art, music, you name it. When you give the AI a prompt, it tries to take the relevant data and reconstruct it, in order to create the desired image. Now, this isn't as easy as it sounds. As a former ai-slop maker, I can tell you that this requires at least several trials and that the prompts sometimes have to be extremely long, just so that the AI doesn't screw up. It is irritating. But it is easily done, compared to ACTUALLY making art.
Real human artists, have to do the manual work. As an actual artist myself, I can tell you that art takes a way longer time. Sketching, lineart, flat, shading, light, bg, you name it. Every artist can probably agree with me, as to how tedious this process is. A computer generating "art" is not so impressive by comparison. A human making art however, is simply a beautiful and painful process.
Some of the ai-pros may argue that humans also use other art for reference and that we are, by that logic, stealing other people's art. But those people, fail to bring up something critical. Something that makes us humans and AI, so different (And no, it's not just because of wires and organs).
When humans want to copy an artstyle or a pose, they have to look at reference images. And try their best to copy that. But humans cannot copy something fully. Whether it be an art-, writing- or composing style, humans cannot replicate it fully. Sure, they can get inspired by it and take some aspects of said references into their work. And some humans can mimic art-styles very closely, to the original source.
But that is the problem. It is only closely. No matter how close it looks, there will be differences. Why?
Because us humans are unique. Shaped by unique experiments, unique backgrounds, life lessons, body shapes and a whole other stuff. No human is alike. Which is what allows us, for individuality to flourish and for us to create beautiful art to begin with. It makes us humans.
AI though isn't human. AI can replicate art styles perfectly, if given the proper instruction. And that is, what makes ai-slop soulless.
Because Ai-slop is nothing more than a bunch of copies. Nothing unique or human about it. And that will stick. Even if ai-stuff becomes so advanced in the future and is getting harder and harder to spot that aspect will always remain. No matter what.
The AI doesn't even know, why it has to use this color, this shape or this facial expression. It copies it from its sets. And nothing more.
Companies using AI will suffer long-term. Sure, it may cut costs short-term, but in the end it will simply alienate their user base. They will eventually move away, to different companies who do not employ those tactics. Sure, giants like Google and Meta don't have any ethical alternative yet, but it will happen. It is only a matter of time.
If a company uses AI, it will lose money. Even the big capitalist folks, won't want that. Capitalism is all about, making as much wealth as possible after all. And by the time they realise this, they will either a) via the sunk-cost-fallacy, keep pumping more AI shit out and digging their own grave or b) stop it and move on. Ibis Paint for example, once revealed an ai-generation tool for their software and after backlash, pulled it back. Good for them.
And the big giants, they will fall. And then the people will step in, average joes that will make better work than they ever could. Capitalism will die that way, if the companies don't see reason.
AI will harm everyone, in the long run. And I am going to use an example.
Myself.
How AI Ruined Me
I used AI-Stuff before, 3 years ago. When it came out, I actively used it for my creative works, like that shitty vhs horror series I once made. Then I stopped and a few months ago, I began to do it again. The images "looked" so good that I wanted to ignore, how soulless they were. I kept pumping out more and more. I was (still am in some aspects) in a bad spot and wanted something to make me happy, no matter what. Generating stuff of my OCs was fun. Very so. And also using ai, to write hcs for them too.
But this hurt me in the long run. And I only realise this now.
I did not use any money on ai, thankfully enough. However, as I used the technology more and more, something weird was happening.
My creative skills, got worse.
And so, I generated more shit in order to avoid that pain. I simply wanted to be happy. I wanted to feel good. And even if I never posted any of my results online, I made a lot.
Suddenly, I had a harder time drawing. Or writing. It was like, I hit some sort of brick wall. What was once easy and fun, now seemed nigh impossible and painful. Sure, stress and depression didn't make those feelings better, but I noticed it. It was painful.
Now...why did I suddenly become worse at art and writing?
Well, consider this. When you do not train a muscle over long periods of time, it gets weaker. Your muscles shrink, because the body thinks: "Oh, guess I don't need that anymore." By using ai-stuff, my creativity took a huge hit. It shrunk. It shrunk down and as such, I had a hard time with it.
AI literally makes you weaker. It is like, if a bodybuilder stops lifting and then asks a buddy to lift weights for him. What happens? The buddy gets those big beefy muscles and the bodybuilder turns into a body-loser.
I found a video on here that explains that more in detail. It is great and I think you need to check it out, because it can probably explain this way better than I do. (And is a partial inspiration of this post)
Closing Thoughts
Now, if you made it this far, thanks for reading. Before I will stop, I want you to not harass anyone who uses ai-generated-stuff or makes it. It is bad yes, but bullying those people isn't beneficial for anyone You can voice your disapproval of course and make it clear that you do not like it, but do not harass them. They need to realise the truth for themselves, like I just had to. You can educate them, but be soft yet stern. Nothing good comes out, of being aggressive. They will need to choose for themselves and hopefully, they will choose the right path. The human path.
Thanks for reading everyone. It felt like such a relief, to write this out. Making ai-stuff was fun, but at the end of the day, I wanna do my own stuff. I finally realise that now. I want to show the world, what I can do. I And so should you.
The so called "AI-SLOP" Itself (HE/SHE/THEY whatever)
- contemporary document - 2026 made with VEO+GEMINI
_please DO NOT REBLOG WITHOUT TEXT - it is important to mark the fact - it was intentionally made - itself.
RPCS3 Developers Ban AI 'Slop Code': Open Source Project Demands Human Accountability
The volunteer development team behind RPCS3, the leading open-source PlayStation 3 emulator, has issued a stark warning to contributors: stop submitting AI-generated "slop code" or face bans from the project. The announcement marks one of the first major open-source projects to take a hardline stance against the flood of low-quality, AI-assisted pull requests that have overwhelmed maintainers in 2026.
The Problem: "Vibe Coding" vs. Real Engineering
The RPCS3 team's frustration stems from a specific pattern of behavior they've dubbed "vibe coding"—contributors who use AI agents to generate code they don't understand, submit it without testing, and then disappear when regressions or bugs are discovered. This leaves the volunteer maintainers to clean up the mess, debug code the original submitter can't explain, and fix breaking changes introduced by unverified AI output.
In their updated contribution guidelines, the team wrote: "If you use AI, you must disclose it. If you submit a PR, you must be able to debug it. If you generate slop that you don't understand and that doesn't work, you are wasting everyone's time."
The New Rules
The updated RPCS3 contribution policy establishes three core requirements:
- Disclosure: Any use of AI tools in code generation must be explicitly disclosed in the pull request.
- Accountability: The human contributor is fully responsible for understanding, testing, and debugging all submitted code.
- Communication: All interaction with the development team must come from a human, not an AI agent.
Pull requests that fail to disclose AI involvement will be closed without review. Repeat offenders face temporary or permanent bans from the project's GitHub organization.
Why This Matters
Emulation is one of the most technically demanding forms of software engineering. It requires cycle-accurate timing, deep hardware knowledge, and meticulous testing against real console behavior. AI-generated code, trained on generic programming patterns, often fails to account for the edge cases and hardware quirks that define successful emulation.
The RPCS3 team's stance highlights a growing tension in the open-source community: AI tools can accelerate learning and research, but they cannot replace the human judgment required to maintain complex, performance-critical systems. As one maintainer put it: "Leave behind something useful to humanity when you're gone, instead of peddling slop."
Broader Implications for Open Source
RPCS3 is likely the first of many. As AI coding tools become ubiquitous, open-source projects—especially those maintained by volunteers—will face an increasing burden of filtering low-effort, AI-generated contributions. The RPCS3 guidelines provide a template for other projects:
- Permit AI use for research and learning, but require disclosure.
- Hold humans accountable for all submissions, regardless of how the code was generated.
- Reject "black box" contributions where the submitter cannot explain or debug their own code.
Reflection
The RPCS3 team's message is not anti-AI; it's pro-quality. They acknowledge that AI can be a powerful tool for reverse engineering and research. But they draw a clear line: AI is an assistant, not a substitute for competence.
For the broader developer community, this is a wake-up call. The ease of generating code with AI has created a new class of "vibe coders" who submit first and ask questions later. Projects like RPCS3, which rely on the dedication of skilled volunteers, cannot afford to become testing grounds for unverified AI output.
The lesson is simple: if you use AI, own it. Understand it. Debug it. Or don't submit it at all.
