IMO AI-written != Slop

Few days ago I read about a fanny experiment. The artist SHL0MS posted an actual Monet painting on X and labeled it "AI-generated in the style of Monet". Replies filled up instantly with confident critique - brushwork off, weird coherence, "obvious AI tells" - from people who didn't recognize one of the most reproduced painters in history. The few who pointed out it's a real Monet got buried. Same dynamic in reverse hit r/Art a while back: illustrator Ben Moran got banned for a 100-hour hand-painted book cover because a mod insisted it "looked AI". Portfolio as proof, "I don't believe you", muted. The label drives the verdict, then people reverse-engineer the craft vocabulary to justify it. Source anxiety wearing the costume of aesthetic judgment, basically. So what does "slop" actually mean then? For me it's not "AI was involved". Slop is generated stuff with no story behind it - you tell the model "write engaging reddit post that promotes X" and it spits out exactly that, no vision, no mess, no point of view. But if I have a real story, real numbers, a real opinion, and I run it through AI because my english is rough - is that slop too? I think the honest filter is not detection. It's whether there's a human underneath the polish. What's your opinion about this? Would you prefer to read a poorly formed thoughts but purely written by human, or a AI-polished version of whatever?