AI Slop and the 3I/ATLAS Comet: A Warning About Internet Misinformation

I've been tracking a troubling trend: people don't want to talk about internet slop. Eyes glaze over, topics change. Perhaps it's uncomfortable to acknowledge that what we're told online could easily be wrong.

The 3I/ATLAS Case Study

I've been following the interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS since October through reliable sources like spaceweather.com, which a read regularly for aurora predictions. This is the third confirmed interstellar visitor to our solar system, a genuine scientific discovery. I even attempted to photograph it myself in December, capturing only a fuzzy yellowish smear, which is exactly what you'd expect from a comet.   Its not a very good photo, a long exposure, high ISO and therefore very grainy it might not even be a reliable sighting. I've taken better comet photos in the past.

Legitimate sources like NASA and Hubble released proper imagery and data showing standard cometary characteristics: CO₂, water, cyanide gas, and nickel vapor. Nothing remarkable, just good science.

Then Came the AI Slop

YouTube exploded with fabricated videos claiming 3I/ATLAS was sending signals to Earth, had its tail pointing the wrong direction, or was an alien probe. These videos featured:

• AI voiceovers narrating alien conspiracy theories
• Deepfaked presenters with repetitive movements
• Repurposed "glowing spaceship" footage falsely labelled as the comet
• Clickbait thumbnails and sensationalist titles

Research from the University of Washington found YouTube's first page of 3I/ATLAS results was dominated by pseudo-science and UFO channels recycling the same speculation with AI narration.

The Real Danger

Why isn't Google stopping this? This flood of misinformation will erode trust in legitimate scientific sources and the platforms themselves. We must learn to recognise AI slop and verify information through reliable sources.

Please be sceptical, even of this post. Check your sources and think critically about what you're being fed.

Proof reading and summary assisted by Claude Sonnet 4.5 (AI)

Where Do We Go From Here?

Testing Out New AI Tools for Writing - The Good 👍and The Bad 👎

I've been experimenting with some of the new large language AI models like ChatGPT Bard and Claude to help summarize and clean up my dyslexic writing. At first, it seemed amazing - I could just dictate my random thoughts and the AI would turn it into clear, readable text. I even had it generate content like blog posts, YouTube scripts, and Instagram captions.

However, I started noticing some issues:

• The AI can be overenthusiastic, especially when mentioning product names. It reads like advertising copy. I have had to rewrite these sections to keep them factual.

• Outrageous claims and incorrect facts. About 40% of the time, the AI includes claims or "facts" that are just plain wrong. I end up removing entire paragraphs.

• About 30% of the time, the content is good as is. The other 30% needs some reworking to tone down the language.

Clearly there's an issue here with misinformation. My current theory is that these large language models are trained on in-discriminant internet data containing conspiracy theories, misinformation, and bias. Garbage in, garbage out. 

I'm finding Anthropic's Claude model more reliable with fewer glaring errors. I have used it on this post, but I still have to carefully review any AI-generated text before publishing. 

As AI becomes more ubiquitous, it's crucial that we understand how these models are trained and what biases they may contain. We have to establish checks and balances, verifying information and not blindly trusting AI outputs.

I'll keep experimenting with AI writing assistants, AI in photography and digital Graphics (generative AI images such as the one abouve), but always maintain oversight. Stay tuned for more on responsible use of generative AI.