I’m all for calling out AI slop but I think we need to be more careful about what we’re actually calling AI.

A commercial I shot recently has been getting these comments when it was made in camera with a real cast and crew, physical props, real locations and a lot of coordination. No AI generated imagery at all. 

Someone posts a “THIS IS AI SLOP” meme underneath and gets 100 likes. The replies explaining how we actually made it get a couple. (The portion in question is the one she walks out of the warehouse).

You don’t have to like the ad and I'm all for criticism. This isn’t me arguing that hiring a crew automatically makes something good or that commercial work should be immune from criticism. But “I don’t like this” and “this was generated by AI” are different claims and it's NOT GOOD for our industry. 

What worries me is that this risks devaluing the exact people the criticism is supposedly defending. If a brand pays for a proper production and gets accused of using AI anyway does that weaken one of the arguments for continuing to hire people? At some point does someone in the boardroom just ask 'If we’re getting the backlash either way, why are we paying to do it for real?'

I don’t think confidently mislabelling human made work helps us make the case for it.

Criticise the work. Hate the ad. But before dismissing it as AI let's check that you’re not dismissing a bunch of talented people who actually built, lit, performed and shot the thing.

Has anyone else had this happen to their work? Do you see it becoming a problem for how audiences and clients value what we do, or am I giving a comment section too much credit?

A commercial I shot is being called 'AI slop'. It was made entirely in camera.