{"slug": "quality-in-the-age-of-slop", "title": "Quality in the Age of Slop", "summary": "A blog post draws parallels between Robert Pirsig's 1974 novel *Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance* and the current crisis in the tech industry, which the author calls \"the Maw\"—a gaping pit of nihilism driven by generative AI. The post argues that software engineers are increasingly disturbed by AI coding tools and are searching for a philosophical defense of the values they once took for granted.", "body_md": "# Quality in the Age of Slop\n\n#### Jun 01, 2026\n\nThis blog post is very long and almost entirely about the 1974 bestseller\n*Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance* by Robert M. Pirsig. It is also\nabout AI—there will be some juicy takes, pinky swear—but those familiar with\n*ZAMM* should consider themselves warned.\n\nThose unfamiliar with *ZAMM* are owed some context. Many see *ZAMM* as a\npretentious book, the kind of book your freshman-year roommate (the one who\nwrote haikus at 2am by moonlight) would have gushed about. It has a middling\n3.78 rating on GoodReads, but it's the reviews that capture how the people who\ndon't like *ZAMM* feel about *ZAMM*. Here's user \"Zora,\" who rated the book one\nout of five stars:\n\nI learned from this book that you can sell a billion copies of a book that no one should ever waste three minutes reading. This is just another neo-philosophy book disguised as a novel. I'm almost convinced that the only reason people buy this book is so that their pseudo-intellectual (read: pompous scumbag) friends will accept them into their hippie circle. Although I know about twenty people who claim to have read this book, I have yet to meet a single person who actually knows what it's about. This book is a bigger hoax than the bible.\n\n—Zora\n\nAnd here's user \"Lala BooksandLala,\" who also gave a one-star rating but expressed herself more succinctly:\n\nabsolutely not\n\n—Lala BooksandLala\n\nSo I will admit that a blog post about *ZAMM* and AI might not sound like a\ngood time; if there's anything more pretentious than *ZAMM* itself then surely\nit is a blog post about *ZAMM*. But I hope that by starting with this frank\ncontent warning I've won myself some of your trust, maybe even enough that\nyou'll be game to buckle in for the winding theme-park boat ride through *ZAMM*\nthat I'm eager to take you on. Because, pretentious as *ZAMM* may be, I really\ncan't stop thinking about it now that we have to contend with the Maw.\n\nWhat is the Maw? The Maw is the gaping pit of nihilism that has opened up in\nthe middle of the tech industry. The Maw is the explicit or implicit subject of\nroughly 63% of blog posts now shared on link aggregators like Hacker News, the\nsubject that nobody can resist writing about, even authors who typically write\nabout SAT solvers or microservices. The Maw is the looming threat that has\nprompted such an outpouring of *cris de couer* in the blogosphere, which\nsome might view as—though I hope events don't go this way—just the death\nbraying of a highly literate professional class.\n\nLately, we had [\"Do I Belong in Tech Anymore?\"](https://ky.fyi/posts/ai-burnout),\nwhich resonated with many emotionally. Of course, there was also the epic\n10-parter, [\"The Future of Everything is Lies, I Guess.\"](https://aphyr.com/posts/411-the-future-of-everything-is-lies-i-guess) My personal favorite is [\"I Think I'm Done Thinking About Gen AI for\nNow,\"](https://blog.glyph.im/2025/06/i-think-im-done-thinking-about-genai-for-now.html) which is notable for complaining primarily about the\n*aesthetics* of AI and perhaps also for [how quickly its author was not, in\nfact, done thinking about Gen AI](https://blog.glyph.im/2026/01/how-to-argue-with-me-about-ai.html). We, the\nsoftware engineers, are clearly working through something.\n\nSoftware engineers aren't known for shying away from new technology, so it feels like you need an extraordinarily good reason to opt out of using the latest agentic coding tools. And yet I think many of us are so disturbed by the implications of letting linear algebra write software that we are looking to articulate that reason, looking to cobble together a defense of the values that heretofore we took for granted but now are under attack.\n\nThis attack isn't just the one implied by how capable AI coding tools have\nbecome. This attack sometimes comes from actual people. On Hacker News and\nsimilar sites, it's common to see something like the following: Commenter A,\nexpressing sympathy with an anti-AI blog post, recounts how the last time he or\nshe used Claude Code it came up with a name for a function that was subtly\nmisleading. Commenter B, Maw acolyte, then swoops in, asking why commenter A\neven cares about how functions are named, given that Claude can just read the\nwhole function body to understand what the function does anyway, *without\nbreaking a sweat*, and furthermore doesn't commenter A realize that soon enough\nno humans will be reading the code at all?\n\nCommenter B appears to be suggesting that software engineering is over. Not just that many individual software engineers will be out of a job, but that the entire discipline of software engineering—the accumulated wisdom about best practices, about effective architecture, about how to make software maintainable and performant—is defunct. That the difference between an accurate name and an inaccurate one doesn't matter if the AI can still spit out working software.\n\nThis is what scares me most about the Maw. It seems to want to swallow forever the distinction between good and bad, leaving a world in which there is only code that works and code that doesn't, and no code that is beautiful, or excellent, or virtuous, or funny.\n\nEvery time I've encountered a comment written by commenter B, I've fallen into\na bout of despair. I feel despair because I've always found the pursuit of\nexcellence in my chosen profession motivating, but on my darker days I worry\nabout whether excellence matters anymore. It seems improbable to me that AI\nwill really make software engineers obsolete, though I can't know the future;\nwhat seems more probable is that the software industry will value technical\ncraft less than it did before. If I want to keep my faith in excellence, I'll\nhave to shore it up for myself. And so I have big, urgent questions: Is there\nstill such a thing as a good programmer? As good code? If there is, why does\n\"good\" matter? What would it look like to be a good programmer who uses AI\ntools? What do *I* consider good, in the face of the Maw?\n\nI can't stop thinking about *ZAMM* because I've discovered that this novel from\n1974 ostensibly about motorcycles has helped me with these questions. In\nbetween some plodding bits about Aristotle and what Montana looks like from the\nhighway, in *ZAMM* I've found a convincing—even moving—vindication of the\ncraftsman ethos latent in so many of the blog posts critical of AI. I suppose\nthis is my attempt to grab everyone by the collar and yell, \"Don't you see?\nThis is all straight out of *ZAMM*!\", hoping that *ZAMM*'s elevation of craft\ngives others the same comfort and guidance that it has given me.\n\nIn case you don't care for motorcycles, let me first persuade you that *ZAMM*\nis actually a book about programming. At least, it's as much a book about\nprogramming as it is a book about motorcycles.\n\n*ZAMM* might as well be called *Zen and the Art of Software Maintenance*\nbecause maintaining motorcycles and maintaining software are, by *ZAMM*'s own\nyardstick, fundamentally the same activity. This seems surprising because we\nthink of motorcycle maintenance as something that requires getting your hands\ngreasy and of programming as something that does not. Yet to get hung up on\nthat difference would be to misunderstand where the real action of motorcycle\nmaintenance is:\n\nAn untrained observer will see only physical labor and often get the idea that physical labor is mainly what the mechanic does. Actually the physical labor is the smallest and easiest part of what the mechanic does. By far the greater part of his work is careful observation and precise thinking. That is why mechanics sometimes seem so taciturn and withdrawn when performing tests. They don't like it when you talk to them because they are concentrating on mental images, hierarchies, and not really looking at you or the physical motorcycle at all.\n\n—\n\nZAMM, Chapter 9\n\nIn order to fix a faulty motorcycle, a mechanic needs to debug the fault, and\nthat debugging process is the same whether the fault is an engine that won't\nstart or a web service that keeps getting deadlocked. It's been a meme since at\nleast 2010's *The Social Network* that you don't interrupt a programmer who's\n\"wired in\"; apparently the same thing has always been true for motorcycle\nmechanics. Both the programmer and the mechanic have to steady wobbly towers\nof abstractions in their heads to make any progress.\n\nThere is one bit in *ZAMM* about how keeping a stool on either side of your\nbike will save your back in the long run, and another bit about how to be\ndelicate with precision parts, but these are the only pieces of direct advice\nin the entire book about how to *physically* maintain a motorcycle. Everything\nelse *ZAMM* has to say about motorcycle maintenance involves the state of mind\nof the mechanic, and so is equally applicable to programming.\n\nMany of these things *ZAMM* has to say operate in the airy realm of philosophy,\nand we'll get to that in a minute, but if all you wanted from *ZAMM* was\npractical tips for working on your next software project it has more of those\nthan you'd think.\n\nTake the chapter devoted to \"gumption traps.\" \"Gumption\" is the reserve of willpower you have available for the intellectual exertion of maintenance, the \"psychic gasoline that keeps the whole thing going.\" A \"gumption trap\" is an event occurring during maintenance that drains a large fraction of your gumption at once.\n\nGumption traps come in many varieties, but all will be familiar to working software engineers. There's the \"intermittent failure setback\", which is when \"the thing that is wrong becomes right all of a sudden just as you start to fix it.\" In software engineering, this is known as a could-not-reproduce, or in bad cases as a Heisenbug; these drain your gumption when you let yourself be fooled into thinking that actually everything is working, only for the problem to crop up again. There's also the \"impatience trap,\" which can happen when you underestimate how long a task will require and, as you fall behind your expected schedule, grow more and more tempted to take shortcuts. Unless you stop and accept the minor gumption hit of admitting that your estimate was wrong, you're vulnerable to experiencing a catastrophic loss of gumption when one of your shortcuts leads to a big mistake that delays you even further.\n\nThe advice in *ZAMM* is so relevant to programming that I wondered whether\nPirsig, *ZAMM*'s author, had ever done any programming himself. The answer is\nyes. He was a big computer guy. At the Smithsonian, there is [an exhibit\ndisplaying Pirsig's 1966 Honda Super Hawk motorcycle next to his Apple\nII](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/zen-motorcycle-still-inspires-philosophical-road-trippers-50-years-later-180984143/). His Apple II is tricked out with seven expansion cards,\nwhich, according to people who know more about the Apple II than I do, is a lot\nof expansion cards. He couldn't have bought his Apple II until well after\n*ZAMM* was published (the Apple II was released in 1977), but he was a computer\nguy even before that, since he worked as a technical writer for Honeywell.\nThere are several analogies in *ZAMM* involving circuits and digital computer\nmanuals.\n\nIt would have been a worse novel, but had Pirsig written *ZAMM* ten or twenty\nyears later it could easily have been about computers and surfing the net\ninstead of motorcycles and roadtripping the West. Many passages would carry\nover almost verbatim.\n\nOkay, thus far, I might have given you the impression that even if *ZAMM* isn't\nreally about motorcycles it's still mostly about maintaining things. Actually,\n*ZAMM* is only about maintaining things as a gateway to *ZAMM*'s big main idea,\n\"Quality.\" (Yes, with a capital \"Q.\")\n\nQuality and how it relates to AI programming tools is what I want to get to,\nbut first I need to explain what Pirsig means by \"Quality.\" This part might\ndrag a little, which is why I wanted to sell you beforehand on how *ZAMM* is\nfull of highly germane and useful advice about programming. Computers! We're\nhere to talk about computers. But also an amateur philosopher's ideas about\nrhetoric and aesthetics. Please don't unbuckle and make a break for the nearest\nexit.\n\n*ZAMM* is structured like an intellectual mystery novel. The inciting incident\noccurs in the first chapter, when Pirsig notices that he and his riding\ncompanion, John, have very different attitudes toward their motorcycles. John\nhas purchased the most reliable motorcycle money can buy, a German-made BMW,\nhoping he can avoid what he sees as the ugly, fussy business of maintaining the\nmotorcycle himself. He'd prefer not have to think about how it works at all.\nThis astounds Pirsig; John's attitude seems impractical and besides there's so\nmuch beauty to appreciate in the inner workings of a motorcycle. Pirsig's\nattempt to account for this discrepancy between John and himself mushrooms into\nthe giant system of thought that takes up the rest of the book.\n\nThe mystery in *ZAMM*, rather than \"whodunit,\" is whether there is an idea that\ncan tie John's view of the world and Pirsig's view together. Pirsig believes\nJohn's attitude represents the way many people in the 60s and 70s feel about\ntechnology—that technology is hostile, controlling, and *square*. He\nsympathizes with this view but also knows that technology doesn't have to be\nthis way and wonders what went wrong. Pirsig decides that John's view\nrepresents the \"romantic\" understanding of the world, one concerned with\nemotion and the immediate impressions of things, while his view represents the\n\"classical\" understanding of the world, one concerned with underlying form and\nlogical abstractions. What went wrong is that these two understandings at some\npoint diverged, and also that technology and society have become so\noppressively dominated by the classical understanding that people need to\ntake long motorcycle roadtrips to get away from it. Pirsig thinks we need both\nmodes of understanding to build technology that serves human flourishing, but\nhe's missing a \"fulcrum idea\" that could reconcile them.\n\nPirsig recalls how earlier in his life, while employed as a college instructor teaching rhetoric, he questioned what he was even supposed to be teaching his students. His job was to teach them good writing, which he did by pointing out the various little devices—metaphor, parallelism, anaphora—that good writers employ. Yet an essay could have all of these and be bad, or none of them and be good. And his students seemed to know good writing from bad writing already, even if they couldn't write well themselves or name all the rhetorical devices. Teaching rhetoric seemed to call for the romantic mode of understanding to be admitted to the classroom, but how could that fly in a university, a bastion of the classical mode, where you aren't supposed to teach students that \"good\" is whatever they like? And is that even what he wanted to teach them? That didn't sound right either.\n\nPirsig realizes that what he was trying to teach his students is Quality. This is the idea that unites the romantic and the classical. He says that Quality is something we can all recognize but nobody can formally define.\n\nOver the following several chapters, Pirsig explains what he means with some\nmetaphysics. (This is likely where many readers sour on *ZAMM*; it's the\nleast convincing part of the book.) Under Pirsig's metaphysical regime, whether\nsomething—a piece of writing, a motorcycle, an experience—is \"high-Quality\" or\n\"low-Quality\" isn't objective, because it isn't measurable, but nor is it\nsubjective, because Quality creates subjects and not the other way around.\nQuality is a kind of sieve on reality that is applied before we can even\nunderstand there to be subjects and objects at all.\n\nThis is hard to wrap your head around. I'm not sure I understand it. I refer\nyou to *ZAMM* if you want a better explanation, since I probably haven't done\nit justice.\n\nIn any case, I think the actually brilliant thing that Pirsig has done\nis land on the name \"Quality.\" Pirsig is trying to answer that age-old\nquestion in ethics, \"What is Good?\", which is basically also that age-old\nquestion in aesthetics, \"What is Beautiful?\"—questions that are thorny in the\nextreme because for them to be meaningful surely the answer has to apply to\neveryone, yet nobody seems to have been able to *prove* that\ntheir notion of Good really is the Good universally. Pirsig's answer is,\n\"What if we call it 'Quality' instead?\" The name \"Quality\" is a smudge; it\nconflates \"quality\" as in \"high-value\" with \"quality\" as in \"characteristic\" or\n\"feature.\" This is brilliant because since Plato's *Republic* everyone has been\ntrying to argue logically for their version of the Good, but \"Quality\" suggests\nthat the Good is immediately perceived, that it's immanent in our experiences\nof the world and comes *before* logic and reason.\n\nHere I start to find Pirsig more convincing. He goes on to point out that science and math, while consistent and logical within their domain, have Quality judgments in their underpinnings and all around their periphery. In geometry, once you have your axioms, everything can be derived with unassailable certainty, but if you choose different axioms you end up with different geometries, and whether one set of axioms is more \"right\" than another is mostly a matter of taste and fitness for purpose—call it \"Quality.\" In science, once you have a hypothesis, the scientific method tells you what to do, but choosing a hypothesis from the ocean of possible hypotheses is an art without any prescribed method.\n\nPirsig quotes Henri Poincairé, who says that the mathematician or scientist at the cutting edge of knowledge must choose among the many possibilities one can derive from existing laws, and that \"the rules that must guide the choice are extremely fine and delicate. It's almost impossible to state them precisely; they must be felt rather than formulated.\" This sounds a lot like the situation in Pirsig's rhetoric class.\n\nWe've already dawdled here for far too long, but I can't resist giving you\nanother example, one that doesn't appear in *ZAMM* but which I think epitomizes\nPirsig's argument. Consider Occam's Razor. This is the principle in science\nthat if you can explain something with a simpler theory you should. It is the\nonly thing stopping you from concocting a more complicated but still\nempirically valid law of gravity that says gravity exists because all matter\nfondly misses being smushed together before the big bang. As long as your\ntheory can be used to predict things accurately, why not use it? Occam's Razor\nsays that you shouldn't use it because the missing-being-smushed part is\nextraneous, but that's an *aesthetic* judgment, a Quality judgment, through and\nthrough!\n\nWhat Pirsig is really trying to show is that the romantic mode of understanding and the classical mode of understanding, far from being opposed to one another, are in the best of science and technology intertwined. As he writes, \"the dictum that Science and its offspring, technology, are 'value free,' that is, 'quality free,' has got to go.\" We might think of our surface impressions of things as somehow inferior to \"true\" knowledge because they don't involve rigorous logic, but Pirsig wants to remind us, as he puts it, that our impressions of Quality are \"the leading edge of the train of knowledge\" and without them \"the entire train has no way of knowing where to go.\"\n\nMuch of the criticism of AI from software engineers has focused on whether\nagentic programming tools can do what the big AI companies claim they can do.\nThere have been blog posts about AI tools where the punchline is that the AI\nfouled up the codebase or hallucinated a function in a library that doesn't\nexist. While I agree that currently AI tools often make mistakes, I suspect\nthat this debate about effectiveness is beside the point and many of the\nengineers criticizing AI would prefer not to use agentic tools *even if they\nworked as advertised.*\n\nI have struggled with this. I have felt a deep disquiet about AI tools that I worry I can't justify, because I know it'd still be there even if Claude Code worked flawlessly. This has bothered me so much that we're now thousands of words deep into my attempt to work it out.\n\nI want to go back to the blog post I mentioned above, [\"I Think I'm Done\nThinking about Gen AI for Now,\"](https://blog.glyph.im/2025/06/i-think-im-done-thinking-about-genai-for-now.html) which I love for being brave\nenough to get into all this. Responding to other software engineers writing\nenthusiastically about AI, the author says this:\n\nI cannot\n\neffectivelyrespond to these folks, because they are making apracticalargument that I cannot, despite my best efforts, find compelling evidence to refute categorically.Myexperiences of genAI are all extremely bad, but that is barely even anecdata.Theirexperiences are neutral-to-positive. Little scientific data exists. How to resolve this?\n\nLater, the author explains why his experiences with AI have been negative:\n\nMy factual analysis of genAI is hopelessly negatively biased. I find the vast majority of the aesthetic properties of genAI to be\n\nintenselyunpleasant.\n\nAnd finally he concludes:\n\nWould I\n\nliketo use this magic robot that could mostly just emit working code for me? Would I use it if it werefree, in all senses of the word?No. I absolutely would not.\n\nThere's something poignant about how strongly he feels repulsed by AI and yet\nhow tied up in knots he is about not being able to prove his case with data in\nsome disinterested, unbiased way. I can certainly relate. If I squint, I can\nsee how [someone might be able to use coding agents in a way I can\nadmire](https://mitchellh.com/writing/my-ai-adoption-journey), but of the more typical case where people seem to be\ndelegating authorship to the machine I can only say that it seems low-Quality.\nThat it can't possibly lead to good code because there's no human excellence in\nit. But that seems so subjective! Can I really make a case for \"human\nexcellence\" if one day it stands in the way of what could be quantifiable\ngains in productivity?\n\n*ZAMM* has helped me here in two ways.\n\nFirst, *ZAMM* has helped me understand that I've been stuck in the classical\nmode of thinking. In the last third of the book, which is much better than the\nmiddle, Pirsig says that he wants to forget about all the metaphysics and\ninvestigate what Quality means for daily life. He says the most important thing\nthat Quality can do is expand reason to include things that were previously\ninadmissible. This is important because it's \"the overwhelming presence of\nthese irrational elements crying for assimilation that creates the present bad\nquality, the chaotic, disconnected spirit\" of our modern age. The classical\nmode so dominates our thinking today that somehow I've decided my visceral,\npre-intellectual distaste for AI is something I should discount rather than\nheed.\n\nPirsig might say that my opinion on AI is neither subjective nor objective\nbecause it derives from a perception of Quality. I'm not sure I can make heads\nor tails of that. I would instead say that my opinion *is* subjective—is\nhopelessly biased—but what *ZAMM* has helped me appreciate is that everybody\nelse's opinion is too, even when it might not appear that way. Someone could\ncome to me with lots of studies that show programmers on average produce 50%\nmore lines of code per day using coding agents. This person has data! But I\nwould be entirely justified in asking, \"Why do we care about these additional\nlines of code? Is there some important end that makes producing this code worth\ndiminishing our capacity for excellence, or will we just be shoveling a glut of\nill-conceived features into software products that already fail to delight the\nsoul? What Quality judgment have *you* made that says writing 50% more code\nthis way serves human flourishing?\"\n\nSecond, *ZAMM* has helped me better understand my reservations about AI. Pirsig\nsays that the problem with modern technology is that it has become dominated by\na classical \"subject-object\" way of looking at things. He talks about how, in\nmanuals for consumer products, every line conveys the idea that the grill/lawn\nmower/dish washer/computer has no relationship to you, and you have no\nrelationship to it, other than to operate it. What counts as good grilling, or\nlawn mowing, or computing etc. is always taken for granted, even though that's\nthe most important part. We have a society in which technology is created by\npeople who are disinterested in it to be sold to people who are also assumed to\nbe disinterested in it.\n\nPirsig believes that to fix this problem technologists need to identify with the work that they are doing rather than allow any estrangement to come between themselves and the machine:\n\nThe mechanic I'm talking about doesn't make this separation. One says of him that he is \"interested\" in what he's doing, that he's \"involved\" in his work. What produces this involvement is, at the cutting edge of consciousness, an absence of any sense of separateness of subject and object.... When one isn't dominated by feelings of separateness from what he's working on, then one can be said to \"care\" about what he's doing. That is what caring really is, a feeling of identification with what one's doing. When one has this feeling then he also sees the inverse side of caring, Quality itself.\n\n—\n\nZAMM, Chapter 25\n\nQuality is related to caring because once you care, once you are interested, you have a vantage point from which to make Quality judgments. These Quality judgments (e.g. \"Is this good code?\") are based in part on the romantic mode of understanding and so within the classical mode alone aren't defensible. But they are necessary, because in the moment-to-moment work on the machine, there are thousands of facts you could consider, thousands of alternative threads you could follow, all equally valid in the classical mode, and the only way to make any sense of it all is to apply a Quality-focused version of Occam's Razor:\n\nTo put it in more concrete terms: If you want to build a factory, or fix a motorcycle, or set a nation right without getting stuck, then classical, structured, dualistic subject-object knowledge, although necessary, isn't enough. You have to have some feeling for the quality of the work. You have to have a sense for what's good.\n\nThatis what carries you forward.—\n\nZAMM, Chapter 24\n\nI can't see how I could offload programming to a coding agent without losing this sense for \"the quality of the work.\" I have found LLMs extremely useful as a search tool and as a kind of super-charged rubber ducking partner. But to use an LLM to write code—when LLMs include randomness as an essential part of how they work—when the whole selling point of these tools is that they can produce more code than I can keep up with—would only be putting a layer of friction between myself and what I'm building. It would make it harder to lose myself in the work. It would make it harder to care.\n\nI am in my mid-thirties. Many noble things have happened in my lifetime—we've cured diseases, made people in the poorest nations wealthier, and even started going back to the moon. But I can't help feeling that in those same 30 years there has been a hallowing out of shared purpose that has left the world more cynical than before.\n\nMy wife and I are expecting our first child later this year. A daughter! I'm beyond excited. But I also fear for what the world will be like another thirty years from now, when she's my age.\n\nI hope my daughter can live in a world where people identify with the work they\ndo and care to be excellent at it. Writing rambling blog posts like this one\nprobably won't help achieve that. But what I *can* do, perhaps the most\nimportant thing I can do, is strive in my own work to set an example for her.\n\nThe place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands, and then work outward from there. Other people can talk about how to expand the destiny of mankind. I just want to talk about how to fix a motorcycle. I think that what I have to say has more lasting value.\n\n—\n\nZAMM, Chapter 25", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/quality-in-the-age-of-slop", "canonical_source": "https://sinclairtarget.com/blog/2026/06/01/quality-in-the-age-of-slop/", "published_at": "2026-06-02 09:11:39+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-06-02 20:29:43.053129+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["generative-ai", "large-language-models", "artificial-intelligence"], "entities": ["Robert M. Pirsig", "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", "GoodReads"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/quality-in-the-age-of-slop", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/quality-in-the-age-of-slop.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/quality-in-the-age-of-slop.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/quality-in-the-age-of-slop.jsonld"}}