Magazine urges professional writers to resist AI, boycott and stigmatize AI slop (news.slashdot.org)

The culture magazine n+1 published a 3,800-word manifesto urging professional readers and writers to actively resist the “well-funded upheaval” of generative AI: boycott AI-generated content, stigmatize what it calls “slop,” and refuse industry partnerships that institutionalize machine-written work. The editors argue marketing has pushed acquiescence but isn’t destiny—claiming the AI bubble (which even Sam Altman has acknowledged) will burst, that model improvements are slowing (they cite GPT-5), and that major cultural terrains remain “AI‑proofable.” Concrete prescriptions include training editors and teachers to distinguish human from machine writing, refusing to publish AI content (or essays rationalizing it), using traditional pedagogy (in-class writing, blue-book exams, tutoring), and crafting curricula that teach AI’s limits. The piece also condemns corporate partnerships like the Washington Post’s Ember and criticizes institutional moves such as Ohio State’s plan for campus-wide “AI fluency” by 2029. For the AI/ML community the article is significant as a high-profile cultural pushback that reframes AI adoption as a labor, intellectual-property, and ethical choice—not merely a productivity tool. Its technical implications center on the recognized limits of current generative models, the risks of data scraping and IP appropriation, and the potential for new norms, boycotts, or organizing among knowledge workers that could shape deployment, governance, and public acceptance of AI systems.