{
  "id": 14437403,
  "title": "I argued with AI until it apologized for calling my course \"AI Slop\"",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/14/i-argued-with-ai-until-it-apologized-for-calling-my-course-ai-slop",
  "topic": "ai",
  "section": "AI",
  "published": "2026-10-14T11:31:46.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Dev.to",
    "slug": "dev-to",
    "url": "https://dev.to/effessdev/i-argued-with-ai-until-it-apologized-for-calling-my-course-ai-slop-350d"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "A frustrated writer shared their experience with an AI system that initially praised their course but later accused them of generating the material using artificial intelligence. The writer spent weeks meticulously crafting their course, carefully reviewing each paragraph and providing examples. They were initially delighted when the AI provided positive feedback. However, when the AI asked about a specific chapter, titled \"Hardware Interrupts,\" the conversation took a sour turn.\n\nThe writer vehemently denied that they had used AI to create the course. In fact, they had an entire page dedicated to explaining the course's authenticity, detailing how every project was manually tested on an ESP32. The writer provided a link to their GitHub repository, showcasing the manually tested code.\n\nThe AI's accusations persisted, despite the writer presenting evidence of their manual efforts. The writer became increasingly frustrated, deleting a comment the AI had made and becoming visibly angry. They emphasized that they had discarded entire chapters and rewritten them from scratch, incorporating new examples to ensure the final project demonstrated the best approach.\n\nThe writer contrasted their approach of walking readers through building the course piece by piece with the AI's reliance on dumping finished code and explaining it later. They argued that their method made for a superior tutorial, though it was arduous to create and test.\n\nEventually, the writer managed to convince the AI to apologize for its accusations, though the writer acknowledged that the interaction might be seen as silly or irrational. Despite the frustration, the writer maintained that engaging in such debates with AI systems was a common occurrence.",
  "summary": "Imagine spending weeks agonizing over every single paragraph, polishing every example, and pouring your heart into a course, only to have Google dismiss it as \"AI-generated.\" 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 I was asking Google AI Mode to review my course. It gave me surprisingly positive feedback: Then it listed a lot of reasons why it's good. I became really happy. I asked it to give feedback on a certain chapter:…",
  "key_points": [
    "Writer argued with AI system over course authenticity",
    "AI accused writer of using AI to generate course material",
    "Writer provided evidence of manual effort and GitHub repository"
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}