AI Slop: The Case for Imperfection and CRISPR’s Future
▼ Summary
– The viral AI video of rabbits on a trampoline marked a key moment when many internet users were first fooled by AI-generated content.
– While initial reactions to AI “slop” were negative, the author later encountered compelling and creative AI clips shared by friends.
– Through interviews with creators and experts, the author became more optimistic that generative AI might not ruin culture.
– CRISPR gene-editing has had limited commercial impact so far, with only one drug approved for a small number of patients.
– A new CRISPR startup proposes an “umbrella approach” to streamline testing and approvals for future treatments.
Pinpointing the exact moment AI-generated content, often derided as “slop,” entered the mainstream is tricky, but a viral video of rabbits on a trampoline last summer stands out. For many, including myself, it was a first encounter with a convincingly fake AI clip, sparking a deluge of similar creations. The initial, widespread reaction was one of disdain. This sentiment has become a common chorus, lamenting an “enshittified” internet where AI shoulders much of the blame. I shared that view. However, my perspective shifted when friends began sharing AI videos in group chats that were strangely captivating, humorous, or even showed flashes of ingenuity.
This forced a realization: I didn’t fully grasp what I was rejecting or why it felt so objectionable. To understand my own reaction, I spoke with video creators, a company building custom AI tools, and media scholars who analyze how new formats become cultural fixtures. What emerged was a more nuanced outlook, suggesting that generative AI might not spell the end of creative integrity online. Perhaps there is room for this imperfect, often messy new medium to evolve in unexpected ways.
Meanwhile, in biotechnology, a different narrative of expectation versus reality is unfolding. A new CRISPR startup is placing a significant bet that regulatory bodies will adopt a more flexible stance toward gene-editing therapies. Since 2013, CRISPR has been heralded as the biotech breakthrough of the century. Yet, its clinical impact has been limited, with only one approved drug treating a small group of patients with sickle-cell disease.
This slow progress has cast a shadow over the field, with some observers declaring the gene-editing revolution has stalled. The central question now is what will accelerate CRISPR’s reach to help more people. This emerging company proposes an “umbrella approach” to testing and commercialization. The strategy aims to streamline the process, potentially avoiding the need for entirely new, costly clinical trials and approvals for each slight modification of a treatment. If successful, this model could be pivotal in translating CRISPR’s promise into accessible therapies.
In a separate but related sphere of science and public health, America’s latest dietary guidelines have drawn criticism for seemingly overlooking decades of nutritional research. Experts argue the recommendations fail to incorporate substantial evidence on topics like sugar consumption and healthy fats, potentially leaving the public with outdated advice that doesn’t reflect current scientific understanding. This disconnect highlights the ongoing challenge of translating complex research into clear, actionable public policy.
(Source: Technology Review)
