The Intention Audit

I saw this question on Threads the other day that stopped me cold:

"Is AI only considered slop if it's bad, or is all AI-generated content automatically considered slop?"

It was provocative and I raced to the comment section to chime in, but then realized that the bigger opportunity I wanted to explain wouldn't fit into the character limit. So here I am, talking to you all about it.

When I sat with the notion for a moment, I realized the need to define what AI slop is or isn't perhaps was less valuable than a meta lens on the actual problem. For me, slop is creation without meaningful intent, no matter how polished, popular, or technically advanced it looks. As someone who's worked in the design and technology space, it made me re-evaluate my own lens on the cornerstone of modern innovation. What fuels it, why it exists and what we're all actually building for.

The Slop Problem Isn't About AI

AI has accelerated the mass production of slop, but the slop problem goes way beyond just the tools. It's about intention.

Some would say mumble rap without message is slop. Others argue that overly auto-tuned singers or mass-produced fast fashion qualify as slop. The difference between purposeful creation and thoughtless production isn't always about how it came to be, it's whether you had something worth creating in the first place.

People can smell a money grab a mile away. While AI has its downsides, it can be incredibly helpful when executing a meaningful vision. The tool isn't the problem, the intention behind using it is.

It got me thinking about the age old notion of "Can vs. Should" that when applied to modern innovation practices can be illuminating.

Just because we can create something doesn't mean we should. The democratization of creation tools came without the democratization of creative responsibility. The unlimited access to (still in their infancy) AI systems came without regulations around its sweeping impact. We've got a massive gap between technical ability and editorial judgment, and it's flooding the world with noise.

But here's where this gets uncomfortable: when I apply this framework broadly, I find it hard to identify things that aren't slop.

The drama of that statement is acknowledged but intentional, stay with me. LOL

The Meta-Slop Problem

Most of big business, when you really examine it through the intention lens, is slop.

Think about how we allocate our innovation energy. We have real, pressing problems that need solving:

Tier 1 Problems:

• Poverty
• Healthcare access
• Educational inequality
• Climate change
• Housing affordability
• Access to factual information
• Mental health crisis
• Democratic institutions under threat

What We're Actually Building (Tier 2):

• Entertainment and distraction
• Wellness and self-optimization
• Artificial companionship and connection
• Financial speculation and luxury goods
• Convenience and instant gratification

The opportunity cost is staggering. While people can't afford insulin, we're building AI to generate TikTok content (because how would we go on as a society without "day in the life" montages?). While democracies fail, we're optimizing ad click-through rates (because the fate of the free world hinges on selling one more sweater). While housing costs spiral, we're creating apps to help you find the perfect avocado (because priorities).

I can think of a few reasons why Tier 2 is more of a focus for most emerging innovation than Tier 1 is:

1. Responsibility deflection - Many feel Tier 1 problems should be handled by government and aren't their responsibility as private citizens or entrepreneurs

2. Difficulty and expertise barriers - Tier 1 problems are genuinely harder to solve, often requiring deep knowledge of existing infrastructure, policy, and systemic complexities rather than building something new from scratch

3. Misaligned incentives - Solving these problems typically wouldn't center personal wealth accumulation as the primary motivator, which conflicts with how most innovation is funded and measured

4. Market dynamics - There's often more immediate money in serving people who already have disposable income (Tier 2) than in solving problems for people who can't pay premium prices

5. The "all ships" problem - Creating solutions that lift everyone reduces scarcity and exclusivity, which some people fundamentally don't want because their status depends on others not having access

It is an unavoidable fact that most people center financial gain as their reason for starting most any venture, and there are an unlimited number of dominos that topple based on that very singular source of momentum:

• When profit is the primary driver, we optimize for short-term gain over long-term sustainability
• Innovation gets directed toward serving people who already have money (luxury problems) rather than those who need basic solutions
• Educational resources flow toward teaching people how to "get rich quick" rather than solving systemic educational gaps
• Even altruistic efforts get co-opted into personal branding and wealth-building strategies

This may very well be a chicken and egg problem, which brought me to my most uncomfortable question: What came first, the seemingly relentless modern day human desire for wealth by any means or a world order that positions wealth as a prerequisite for a life well lived? How much of what we call 'innovation' is really just profiting off problems we could solve if we wanted to?

Would X Be Needed If We Had Y?

Most modern innovation operates on the Band-Aid model: ignore—or maintain—broken public systems, then sell private workarounds at premium prices. We prioritize Tier 2 comforts over Tier 1 needs not because they matter more, but because they're easier to monetize.

Healthcare and Wellness: Would a $4.4 billion meditation app industry exist if affordable mental healthcare was universal? Would we need wellness influencers selling "good vibes" if preventive medicine addressed the root causes of stress and anxiety?

Economic Security: Would we need 47 different budgeting apps if we paid living wages? Would we need payday loan apps if we had real financial literacy education in schools? Would we need credit repair services if the credit system wasn't designed to trap people in cycles of debt?

Connection and Community: Would we need dating apps if we hadn't destroyed third spaces where people naturally meet? Would we need AI companions if we hadn't isolated people through car-dependent suburban design? Would we need social media dopamine hits if we had real, functioning communities?

Education and Information: Would we need an army of life coaches if schools taught practical life skills alongside algebra? Would we need fact-checking services if journalism wasn't gutted by private equity and reduced to clickbait? Would we need productivity gurus if work was actually meaningful and fairly compensated?

Entertainment and Distraction: Would we need endless streaming content if people had fulfilling work that didn't drain their souls? Would we need productivity hacks and self-help content if the systems we work within weren't fundamentally broken?

The pattern becomes painfully obvious when dissected in this way and I really want you to see it. Most "innovation" is just expensive workarounds for problems we refuse to solve systematically, sold back to us at a premium and in support of private business that gives it to you. It's a death spiral of extracted resources that at the time of me writing this, rarely benefits the greater good.

The Creator's Dilemma

This puts content creators in an interesting position. If most innovation is just sophisticated band-aids for systemic failures, what does that mean for us?

Are we solving real problems or creating more distractions? Are we building something meaningful or just feeding the machine? Are we contributing to solutions or simply profiting off systemic failures?

I caught myself doing this exact thing while writing this piece. I started wondering if I should split this essay into two parts because "maybe it would perform better" and "people prefer shorter content."

There it was, optimizing for the feed instead of asking what serves the idea best. The very thing I'm critiquing.

I make a real effort to see myself as an active participant in the circumstances I critique. Examining my own behaviors and motivations helps me question their root causes. With some hope, sharing that process might spark a collective push toward making things better.

What can get us there is an intention audit.

The Intention Audit Questions

Before creating anything (content, products, companies) run it through these questions:

1. What problem does this actually solve?

2. Would this problem exist in a well-functioning society?

3. Am I treating symptoms or addressing root causes?

4. Who benefits from this problem continuing to exist?

5. Am I building for a world I want to live in, or just the world that exists?

These aren't meant to paralyze you or stop you from creating. They're meant to help you create more intentionally.

If you're going to make something, make something that would be valuable even if the broken systems were fixed. Build for the world you want, not just the world you've inherited.

The Choice We're Making

We're at a moment where we have unprecedented tools to create, build, and solve problems. Asking what qualifies as AI slop is perhaps an underrepresentation of the bigger opportunities at play. I'd like to reframe the thoughts less around the creative power granted to us by the tools at our disposal and more around how we'll choose to use our newfound creative power thoughtfully.

Every time you create something you're casting a vote for the kind of world you want. Are you voting for band-aids or solutions? Distraction or progress? Slop or substance?

The democratization of creation tools means the democratization of responsibility. With great power comes great "should I actually do this?"

Your intention is your signature. In an age where we can create anything, make sure what you're signing is worth it. The "slop" debate is bigger than AI, it's about the choices we make when possibility is unlimited. The world doesn't need more products. It needs more intention.

---

As always, stay curious. Stay inspired.