Knitting bullshit

Overall reaction to the article

• Strong split: some found it unreadably long‑winded and contrarian; others called it one of the clearest, most convincing treatments of “bullshit” they’d seen, better than much academic writing.
• Several praised its methodical application of a philosophical definition of bullshit to a niche craft, and liked the conversational yet structured argument.
• A few thought the article underplayed how destructive this kind of content is.

AI images and podcasts

• Many initially didn’t realize the knitting images were AI; once they did, they saw them as an intentional joke reinforcing the argument: easy, low‑effort slop.
• Some argued the images still improve the article by lowering the “wall of text” barrier.
• The AI‑generated knitting podcasts are seen as emblematic of “brainrot farms”: huge volume, low care, “about 3000 episodes per week” from a tiny team.

Bullshit, truth, and “slop”

• The key distinction: bullshit is indifferent to truth, focused on impression and emotional validation rather than accuracy.
• Commenters stressed how this register of “feeling good” over “being true” is spreading widely, including in religion, pop science, and news.
• Some warned that asking for rigor is increasingly framed as being “hostile” or “overheated,” which suppresses criticism.

Impact on creators, hobbies, and authenticity

• Concern that sincere niche creators (e.g., real knitting podcasters and pattern designers) get buried under AI output or even fed back into it.
• Fake or impossible knitting/crochet patterns, paired with stolen or AI images, waste people’s time and damage trust.
• Debate over whether “being a knitter” (or similar identities) can be sustained by pure consumption/validation without actual making.

Economics and incentives

• Motives suggested: ad revenue, ad fraud, audience capture, brand‑building, possibly even money laundering.
• Some argued the simple explanation—cheaper production and higher margins—is enough; others speculated about bots both producing and “listening” to content.

Societal and psychological responses

• Many expressed deep sadness, fatigue, or anger at AI slop and the “enshittification” of the internet; some feel they’re mourning a lost earlier web.
• Others noted parallels to pre‑AI slop (certain magazines, stock‑photo news, low‑effort streamers) but emphasized today’s unprecedented scale.
• Proposed coping: aggressive filtering (adblock‑like tools, “slop blockers”), curation and small trusted networks, and moving attention back to offline, embodied, and analog activities.