Is AI Slop Getting Out Of Control?
The more time I spend analyzing the publishing industry, the harder it is to deny what’s happening.
I recently read an interview with a woman called Lena who self-publishes cookbooks online. She writes recipes, formats them into short digital books, and adds notes about what worked and what didn’t.
Lena started compiling recipes during the Covid lockdowns, mostly for friends. One booklet did well. Then another. And over time, her titles grew into something that covered a few bills. She learned which covers got clicks, which keywords improved ranking, and how small changes in descriptions affected sales.
“My revenue used to be predictable” she said during the interview. “And I knew who I was competing with.”
Last year, AI slop began dominating her category on Amazon and tons of other stores. New titles appeared overnight with polished covers, long descriptions, and high review counts. Some authors released ten books a week. Some released dozens. A somehow, a few were publishing close to 250 books every month.
Lena investigated her alleged “competitors.” A few recycled her ideas, rewritten just enough to pass as original. Several openly admitted they were using tools from OpenAI to generate full cookbooks at scale without testing recipes.
“They don’t cook,” she said. “They just publish.”
When the interviewer asked about AI, Lena didn’t argue. She said she uses tools, too. And formatting software like Grammarly saves time during the editing process. But then she talked about volume as some authors are producing endless full-length books through automation, releasing all week, every week, without ever slowing down.
“I can’t write a hundred books a month,” she added. “No human can.”
There’s a case I keep hearing from people who defend the flood of AI content. The feed was already crowded and low quality long before generative tools arrived. And that automation just makes it easier to produce what platforms have always rewarded, such as volume, consistency, and output that fits the content guidelines.
The argument usually starts with access.
“AI tools lower the barrier to entry. People without cameras, editing skills, or time can still publish. Small businesses can compete with agencies. Individuals can keep up with posting schedules that once required teams.” In that framing, AI doesn’t damage the creator economy because it expands participation.
Some point to history.
Social media already runs on repetition, templates, and trends. AI speeds that up, but it doesn’t change the logic underneath it. The feed looks the way it does because that’s what the system has always selected for.
Other people who defend AI slop focus on economics. They say attention platforms need supply. Advertisers need inventory. Feeds that slow down lose users. So, generating more content keeps people scrolling and keeps revenue predictable.
What scares me is what will happen once the adjustment to AI slop becomes a cultural norm. And once visibility depends on machine speed rather than human limits, the people who can’t automate their presence won’t be competing anymore.
They’ll be forced off the platform.
Writers are constantly told the publishing industry is thriving because more books are being released than ever, even as fewer people can earn from them. They’re also told to adapt faster, release more often, and stay flexible, while competing against output that never deals with delays, edits, or limits.
If publishing looks healthy, it’s because it’s being measured in a way that excludes the people actually doing the work. Growth now means more titles, lower royalties, and slimmer odds of being discovered at all. And the longer that standard becomes normalized, the clearer it becomes that staying visible depends less on what someone writes and more on how quickly they can keep releasing without stopping.
That isn’t accidental.
Amazon ranks books by sales velocity and recent activity. Kindle Direct Publishing favors authors who release frequently and keep their catalogs active. Subscription programs like Kindle Unlimited reward pages read and consistency over time. None of them factor in how long a book took to write or whether it came from a person who had to stop and sleep.
The platforms don’t just allow this environment… they rely on it. Storefronts need a constant supply to keep rankings moving. Subscription models depend on readers always having something new to click. As long as books keep arriving on schedule, the system keeps working as designed.
Companies like Amazon are already moving in a direction that makes this worse. As AI slop makes it easier to generate and repackage books, the catalog expands faster than any reader can keep up with. Entire shelves fill with titles that look complete, follow the same structures, and arrive in bulk.
“My feeling is that the flood of nonsense, low-quality content generated using AI might further reduce people’s attention span,” said Alessandro Galeazzi from the University of Padova in Italy, who researches social media behaviour and echo chambers. “Verifying whether or not a piece is AI takes mental effort, and over the long run, people will simply stop checking.”
“AI slop increases the brain rot effect,” Galeazzi continued. “It makes people quickly consume content that they know is not only unlikely to be real, but probably not meaningful or interesting.”
Alessandro is right and it’s hard to ignore where the publishing industry is likely heading. Publishers will move budgets toward authors who can release on demand, platforms will promote whoever fills the shelves fastest, and earning a living as a writer becomes tied to output speed.
"I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes"
Joanna Maciejewska
I file away posts that I want to keep handy. Yours is under the label, positive messages.
Harold Bloom comes to mind: “You can argue passionately that no one, in the end, is benefitted by mediocrity, whatever the source of that mediocrity is.” And slop’s worse than mediocre. It’s slop!