Too long to read so I just had AI detect that it is AI slop. Anyone can read more of it if they are into that sort of thing.
I'm fine with you promoting things but at least contribute something with actual effort. There is also the issue that whenever I made an account on your other site the password would not work a few weeks later even though I use a manager. It's not like I lost the password. Kind of like you are clearing passwords of high value people to get them to do more password attempts to farm them. Given the fact that you started this sharing AI generated script kiddie content, it's just a little sus.
Goatmatrix allowing self promotion means we will have a few dickheads do it. That's why many sites shut it down entirely. A few people ruin a good thing. So it's ok to call out shit that doesn't quite pass the sniff test.
Now here is the AI slop digging into the AI slop. I am guilty of a few when I write as a human. But some of them are really concrete.
Here are some concrete reasons why the passage you shared reads like AI-generated “slop,” rather than carefully edited human writing:
1. Overstuffed Sentences
Sentences routinely run 40–60+ words, chaining together 4–5 clauses with semicolons, dashes, and commas.
Human editors usually break these into shorter, more digestible units. LLMs tend to favor sprawling “omniscient narrator” sentences.
2. Formulaic Structure
The text is organized into neat “layers” and “dimensions” (political framework, instruments of execution, technological angle, effects, performative dimension).
This tidy compartmentalization feels schematic, as though the model is following an essay-template rather than developing an organic argument.
3. Repetitive Phrasing
Multiple variants of the same idea are reiterated:
“not only about controlling criticism… it is about limiting narratives”
“not just another wave of technical censorship… it is a redesign”
“both normative and punitive.”
This tautological rhythm is common in AI text padding out points.
4. Generic “Think Tank” Tone
Phrases like “contours of this offensive,” “narrative control,” “civic health,” “perception management” are generic analyst-speak, strung together without sharp original insight.
The language feels abstract, polished, and vaguely academic but hollow.
5. False Specificity
The piece includes a very precise date—September 22, 2025—without attribution to a source. AI models often inject fake or unverifiable dates to sound authoritative.
Named companies and platforms (ByteDance, Alibaba, Xiaohongshu, etc.) are dropped in lists, but without concrete examples, quotes, or references. It’s surface-level detail.
6. Circular Logic
The “contradiction” highlighted—censorship for stability may undermine stability—is obvious and repeated in different guises.
Rather than pushing toward a novel insight, the piece loops over the same paradox.
7. Evenly Distributed Balance
Each section carefully gives “both sides”: the state’s rationale and the risks, the technological convenience and the irony, the platforms’ dilemmas and the creators’ chilling effects.
This symmetrical treatment is a hallmark of AI attempts at neutrality, whereas human pieces often show bias, emphasis, or idiosyncratic voice.
8. Excessive Length for the Content
The passage uses ~1,700 words to deliver what could be said in ~600.
Much of the text is filler scaffolding (“In other words…,” “At the same time…,” “Finally, there is…”).
9. Lack of Verifiable Anchors
No quotes from Chinese officials, no links to CAC documents, no references to Chinese press, no localized vocabulary.
A human expert would usually ground the analysis with at least one primary-source anchor.
10. Mechanical Transitions
Every paragraph opens with stock connectors: “To grasp…,” “Politically…,” “Technologically…,” “At the same time…,” “Finally….”
This gives away an algorithmic “outline expansion” process rather than organic flow.
✅ Summary:
It smells of AI because it’s overlong, padded with repeated ideas, structured in a formulaic outline, and dressed up in vague academic-analyst jargon with superficial details and a conspicuous lack of grounded sources. It reads more like a synthetic “policy brief generator” than a piece crafted by a human with real reporting or unique perspective.
Log in
AI slop?
Too long to read so I just had AI detect that it is AI slop. Anyone can read more of it if they are into that sort of thing.
I'm fine with you promoting things but at least contribute something with actual effort. There is also the issue that whenever I made an account on your other site the password would not work a few weeks later even though I use a manager. It's not like I lost the password. Kind of like you are clearing passwords of high value people to get them to do more password attempts to farm them. Given the fact that you started this sharing AI generated script kiddie content, it's just a little sus.
Goatmatrix allowing self promotion means we will have a few dickheads do it. That's why many sites shut it down entirely. A few people ruin a good thing. So it's ok to call out shit that doesn't quite pass the sniff test.
Now here is the AI slop digging into the AI slop. I am guilty of a few when I write as a human. But some of them are really concrete.
Here are some concrete reasons why the passage you shared reads like AI-generated “slop,” rather than carefully edited human writing:
1. Overstuffed Sentences
2. Formulaic Structure
3. Repetitive Phrasing
Multiple variants of the same idea are reiterated:
This tautological rhythm is common in AI text padding out points.
4. Generic “Think Tank” Tone
5. False Specificity
6. Circular Logic
7. Evenly Distributed Balance
8. Excessive Length for the Content
9. Lack of Verifiable Anchors
10. Mechanical Transitions
✅ Summary:
It smells of AI because it’s overlong, padded with repeated ideas, structured in a formulaic outline, and dressed up in vague academic-analyst jargon with superficial details and a conspicuous lack of grounded sources. It reads more like a synthetic “policy brief generator” than a piece crafted by a human with real reporting or unique perspective.