There are too many in the western marxist tradition who are marxist because its like the "hidden gem" corner coffeshop of "ideologies" or because its "provocative" - so it becomes abstracted as a matter of social prestige capital ("I am the most morally forthright" "I believe in the secret little thing which makes me smarter than those hillbillies")

Okay. Here's one definition, clearly taken from modern use:

digital content of low quality that is produced usually in quantity by means of artificial intelligence

But that doesn't really say anything about what "low quality means". It goes on to give quotes as examples:

An AI-enabled social media future also raises concerns around deterring AI slop—mass-produced, junky and superficial content that clogs up the web and social media accounts.— Katelyn Chedraoui

Slop can now be found anywhere, from unsettling images on Facebook of Jesus fused with prawns to poorly written Kindle books …— Tess Bennett

The closest to a concrete example given seems to be "Jesus fused with prawns" but it's unclear whether it's talking about a visual mess or a creative fusion of concepts.

So it's largely just being circular saying that slop is low quality and low quality is slop.

Poor writing, shallow worldbuilding, flat characters, one dimensional enemies, illogical plotlines, rushed pacing, bad storytelling, among many other multitude of things that are all a consequence of the movie only existing to sell toys.

So... low quality? That's what this boils down to, isn't it? And if so, why not just say that? It's more transparent in meaning than "slop". Though also more revealing of the point of view behind it; that "low quality" artisanal work is deserving of disgust and rejection.

The complete lack of human experience in the creative process. Any piece of art is a reflection of its creator and even if it’s ‘bad’ art you can still feel their experiences, their views, their feelings, etc. dripping through every page in a book, every scene in a movie, every line on a canvas, etc. An artist puts themselves in their work. AI does not do this because it cannot do this. It has no ‘self’ to place inside. It has no history, no experience, no values, no thoughts, etc. It’s an algorithm; a machine. It can ‘think’ only within the limits of its programming.

What does this have to do with perceived quality though? If humans can churn out movies that are somehow still "slop" by your definition, then what's distinct about AI generated stuff in this regard? There are already people who get fooled and can't tell the difference because the differences aren't actually as distinct as they think, on the surface. In fact, because generative AI is derived from human works, it would be weird if it felt nothing at all like human creations.

In reality, AI has biases based on how it was trained and what it was trained on. To use a basic example, an AI trained primarily on the works of shakespeare will largely produce things that sound shakespearean. Is this not a reflection of shakespeare and the culture that produced the form of his modern works than an AI might be trained on? Just more removed from his active involvement?

Another way to consider it, is if AI-generated stuff was truly lacking in anything resembling what humans make, it would not be at all relatable to humans. But clearly, in practice, it often is to a degree. It just lacks directorial intent a lot of the time. Instead of getting what you had in mind exactly, you get an approximation based on an amalgamated cultural lens.

Also, pseudo-rant incoming, as a writer, "their feelings, etc. dripping through every page" is some flowery bullshit. It's a nice sentiment if you want to be poetic about it, but it's not how the raw reality of it works. It doesn't matter what I feel if the language I'm using and the mastery I have over it does not work for expressing it as I intended. This was one of the first things I noticed when I was younger and was trying to figure out how to translate "stories in my head" to novel-like prose. They are not the same and I still struggle with it sometimes.

An artist doesn't put themself in their work. They take something, which is derived in part from their own self and in part from the world they have grown up in and are immersed in, and they try to translate it via the language that they know and the methodology they have to express themself, into something that we call an artform. And if they try really hard at this and fail on the craft of it and the logistical mechanics of how to excel at a given craft, their work gets called "low quality", maybe even "slop". The artistic world doesn't give a shit how much "soul" you put into something if it doesn't show in the work. If the value was about that, we'd be judging works based on proof of how many hours and how many crying sessions and personal revelations a person put in rather than the end result.

Never, when I see people critiquing or lambasting a work of art, do I see them going, "I wonder how many times the people involved spent long hours agonizing over a little detail. That would add to the value of it if they did." People only give a fuck about that when it's some individualist marketing campaign talking about an artist's backstory to sell more of the product.