Your Name Is on the Door
Imagine a doctor who allows a medical student to perform surgery while she scrolls on her phone. The student has training. The procedure might even go fine. But if something goes wrong, the doctor cannot say, “I did not perform the surgery.”
Her name is on the door. Her license is on the line. Her responsibility is total.
This is what it means to publish AI generated content under your name.
AI can assist you. It cannot absorb your responsibility.
What “AI Slop” Actually Means
The term “AI slop” is often used loosely. For professionals, we need a precise definition.
AI slop is content generated by AI and published by a human who added no meaningful judgment, expertise, or revision.
It is not:
- Grammar checking
- Research assistance
- Outline generation
- Drafting followed by substantial human rewriting
It is:
- Unedited AI output
- Generic, pattern matched analysis
- Content the signer cannot defend sentence by sentence
The difference is accountability. Did you shape the argument? Did you verify the reasoning? Can you defend every conclusion?
If not, you assumed risk without adding value.
The Risk Gradient
Professional exposure increases along a predictable spectrum.
| Level | What It Is | Example | Professional Exposure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tool | AI assists human creation | Grammar check, summarizing research | Minimal |
| Co-creation | Human and AI collaborate | Iterative drafting with substantial revision | Low |
| Generation | AI creates, human lightly curates | Selecting one draft with minor edits | Moderate |
| Slop | AI creates, human publishes unedited | Blog posts, client alerts, social updates | High |
| Fraud | AI creates, human claims full authorship | Submitting AI work as entirely your own | Severe |
Each step upward increases reputational and legal exposure. It also makes it harder to defend your work if challenged by a client, regulator, court, or opposing counsel.
The Reputational Risk
Professional credibility is built on trust.
Trust that your analysis reflects your judgment.
Trust that your conclusions are grounded in your expertise.
Trust that your name carries meaning.
Publishing AI slop erodes that trust in three ways.
The Engagement Problem
Readers sense generic content quickly. The language feels hollow. The examples feel recycled. The insight feels thin. They disengage.
The Credibility Shock
When someone learns that you have been publishing AI generated content without disclosure, they reassess everything you have written. Even your original work becomes suspect.
Reputation does not compartmentalize. Doubt spreads.
The Authenticity Problem
Your experience and voice differentiate you. AI produces pattern based output. When you substitute that output for your own thinking, you become interchangeable.
Interchangeable professionals are replaceable professionals.
The Legal Risk
For lawyers and regulated professionals, the stakes extend beyond reputation.
Malpractice Exposure
When you sign your name to work product, you represent that it meets professional standards. If AI generated text contains errors or fabricated authority, you remain responsible.
You cannot delegate judgment to a machine.
If the work is wrong, it is your error.
Sanctions
Courts have sanctioned attorneys for filing AI generated briefs that included fabricated citations. The issue was not the use of AI. The issue was failure to review and verify.
Judges expect lawyers to stand behind every citation and every factual representation.
Discovery Exposure
AI usage can itself become discoverable.
Opposing counsel may ask:
- What portion of this document was AI generated?
- What prompts were used?
- What instructions were given?
- What edits were made?
- What was accepted without change?
Prompt history, drafts, and edit logs can become evidence. If you cannot clearly explain your role in shaping the content, that becomes a litigation vulnerability.
How This Shows Up in Litigation
In active disputes, AI slop creates specific exposure.
Sanctions risk
Courts may penalize filings that rely on unverified AI output.
Malpractice claims
Clients may argue that reliance on unreviewed AI content breached professional standards.
Credibility damage
Opposing counsel may use AI reliance to undermine competence or diligence before a judge or jury.
Discovery leverage
Your internal drafting process can become a strategic attack surface.
AI generated work is not invisible. It can become part of the evidentiary record.
The Three Question Test
Before publishing anything, ask yourself three questions.
Can I defend every sentence?
If asked under oath, could you explain the reasoning behind each assertion?
Would I be comfortable seeing this quoted in court?
If your name were the only attribution, would you stand by it fully?
What value did I add?
Did you contribute judgment, experience, and analysis? Or did you simply press publish?
If your only contribution was distribution, you assumed risk without exercising professional skill.
The Safe Harbor
AI tools are not inherently dangerous. They are powerful when used correctly.
Use AI to improve your work, not to replace it.
- Use it to check grammar, not to craft arguments
- Use it to summarize materials, not to replace reading them
- Use it to generate options, not to make final decisions
- Use it to draft, then rewrite thoroughly
- Use it to organize structure, then fill in your insight
The goal is work that is better because of AI assistance, not work that is AI output.
The Bottom Line
AI slop is unmanaged professional risk.
Every time you publish work you did not meaningfully shape, you assume reputational exposure and potential legal liability.
There is no delegation defense. There is no machine exception.
Your name is on the door.
Make sure the work behind it is truly yours.
Disclaimer: I used AI to help draft and refine this post, but the ideas, analysis, and editorial judgment are my own.
About the Author
Salma Saad is the founder of Rule26 AI and a CIPP/US certified technical expert. With over 20 years in software engineering, she provides technical memos that translate complex AI systems into actionable evidence for litigation teams.