The phrase “AI slop” has been making the rounds lately, and honestly, it’s not hard to see why. A lot of us can feel that something’s changed in the way brands communicate. There’s more content than ever, but so much of it feels… empty. Robotic. Like it was made to tick a box, not to actually say something. And the strange thing is, the problem isn’t that AI is being used. It’s how it’s being used, without intention, without care. That’s the bit that makes people uneasy.
When brands miss the mark, it’s tempting to blame the tech. But AI isn’t the villain here. The tools are actually quite impressive. They can be helpful, even creative, if used well. The real issue is how organisations are choosing to plug AI into their process. Too often, it’s all about speed and scale and how fast can we churn this out, how much can we publish. And when that becomes the goal, the results might “work” on the surface, but they don’t really land. They don’t feel like anything.
People pick up on that. We’re surprisingly good at sensing when something was made with effort, and when it wasn’t. Whether we realise it or not, we’re constantly asking: did someone actually think about this, or am I just another data point in a content pipeline? When the answer feels like “meh, good enough,” trust starts to slip. Even if the information itself is accurate, it still leaves us cold.
Ironically, the better AI gets, the less patience people have for low-effort output. A few years ago, a generic message might’ve been acceptable. But now, with how far the technology has come, expectations are higher. We assume content will be relevant, clear, maybe even a little insightful. If it’s not, it doesn’t just feel bland. It feels lazy.
At the core of it, people want accountability. We’re not obsessed with whether something was written by a person or a machine. We just want to know someone stands behind it. Someone who actually cares. That’s why “AI slop” feels so untrustworthy, no one seems willing to take responsibility for it.
One of the big missteps companies make is using AI right at the start of the process, asking it to do the thinking, and then having humans rubber-stamp the results. That’s usually when the content feels forgettable. It’s better the other way round. Humans set the vision, define the standards, and make the judgement calls. Then AI helps carry it out, fill in the blanks, push ideas further. It should save time, not replace taste.
There’s also this outdated obsession with scale. For years, the strategy was to be everywhere, all the time. But that playbook doesn’t really work anymore. AI makes it easy to flood every channel with content, but most of it doesn’t land. In today’s noisy world, precision is more powerful than presence. One thoughtful, well-timed message can do far more than a dozen generic ones.
Another thing brands often miss is the difference between consistency and sameness. AI is great at making everything sound uniform, but people don’t trust uniformity. We trust nuance. We notice small shifts in tone, little imperfections, signs that a real person was paying attention. That’s what builds connection. That’s what builds trust.
Right now, there’s a clear split happening. Some companies are using AI to cut corners, minimise human input, and just churn out more stuff. It might save money in the short term, but it chips away at trust and long-term brand value. Others are using AI to sharpen human insight, refine their thinking, and raise the bar. They might produce less, but it resonates more.
AI isn’t a competitive edge anymore. It’s just part of the toolkit. What matters now is how you use it. And as more low-effort content floods the space, the intentional stuff stands out even more. The brands that will thrive aren’t the ones automating the most. They’re the ones still taking responsibility for what they put out into the world.
The real problem isn’t that people are getting “bad” content. It’s that too many organisations are dodging ownership over what AI creates in their name. AI slop isn’t some inevitable byproduct of machines. It’s what happens when no one cares enough to step in. And at the end of the day, trust has always been built on care.
So no, this isn’t about rejecting AI. It’s about using it with clarity, restraint, and a bit of self-awareness. That’s how we move forward. That’s how trust gets rebuilt.
Share this post