Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
PreprintCited by 3

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

LLMs as supersloppers

Copestake, Ann, Duggan, Lucy, Herbelot, Aurelie, Moeding, Amira, von Redecker, Eva·2024

Abstract

The development of Large Language Models (LLMs) as a component of systems such as ChatGPT foregrounds a range of issues which can only be analysed through novel interdisciplinary approaches. Our pilot project `Exploring novel figurative language to conceptualise Large Language Models’, funded by Cambridge Language Sciences, is aimed at helping both specialists and non-specialists gain a more precise understanding of the technology and its implications. In this poster, we use `slop' as a metaphor to highlight one aspect of LLMs, but situate the issue in a broader context. We use ‘slop’ to mean text delivered to a reader which is of little or no value to them (or is even harmful) OR is so verbose or convoluted that the value is hidden. Examples of slop include: over-general instructions, unnecessary terms and conditions and spam email. The term `slop' is sometimes used specifically for AI-generated content but in our usage it predates machine-generated text. Slop arises when desiderata other than communication with readers determine text production or delivery. Systems incorporating LLMs may become `supersloppers': tools for the creation and delivery of more and more pointless text. Because so much slop already exists, and because it is often repetitious, maximizing the text on which LLMs are trained results in systems which excel at production of slop. It is useful to think of slop as a category because it draws attention to specific ways in which the arenas we are examining are far removed from the basic setting of human conversation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.33774/coe-2024-dx12p

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

See all 3

Metadata

Authors
Copestake, A., Duggan, L., Herbelot, A., Moeding, A., & von Redecker, E.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge
Published
2024-11-14
Cited by
3
References
0
Type
Preprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: LLMs as supersloppers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.33774/coe-2024-dx12p
The paper
Copestake, A., Duggan, L., Herbelot, A., Moeding, A., & von Redecker, E. (2024). LLMs as supersloppers. https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2024-dx12p

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.