Artificial Intelligence Discourse and Public Grievance Act

§ 301. Definitions

(a) “AI complaint.” Any public or private statement expressing dissatisfaction with artificial intelligence, its outputs, its prevalence, its users, or the fact that somebody has apparently put it in a refrigerator.

(b) “Slop declaration.” A statement identifying text, imagery, audio, video, software, or other material as “AI slop,” “slop,” “soulless,” “obviously generated,” or substantially equivalent terminology.

(c) “Punctuation-based abandonment.” The announced cessation of reading based principally upon encountering an em dash.

(d) “Antithetical construction.” A rhetorical construction substantially equivalent to “It’s not X, it’s Y.”

(e) “Public notice of cessation.” Informing persons who did not inquire that the declarant stopped reading, watching, listening to, or otherwise considering a work.

§ 302. Complaining About Artificial Intelligence

(a) Mere criticism of artificial intelligence, including criticism that is severe, repetitive, technically uninformed, or delivered while using artificial intelligence, shall remain lawful.

(b) A person commits Aggravated AI Complaining when that person publishes substantially the same generalized complaint on three or more unrelated discussions within a twenty-four-hour period.

(c) Aggravated AI Complaining is a Class C misdemeanor.

Mandatory sentence: The offender shall identify the specific model, output, product, or practice being criticized before posting again.

§ 303. Lawful Declaration of Slop

(a) No offense is committed by accurately or sincerely describing material as slop.

(b) A person asserting that material is slop shall, upon reasonable demand, identify at least one characteristic of the material other than the mere possibility that a model participated in its creation.

(c) Acceptable particulars include factual incoherence, repetitive structure, meaningless ornamentation, generic phrasing, visual artifacts, fabricated citations, or conspicuous absence of editing.

§ 304. Slop Designation Without Particulars

(a) A person commits Slop Designation Without Particulars when that person repeatedly labels material “AI slop” and, when asked why, responds only with another synonym for slop.

(b) The offense is a civil infraction.

Mandatory assessment: The offender shall circle the slop and show the Court where the slop is.

§ 305. Punctuation-Based Abandonment in the First Degree

(a) A person commits Punctuation-Based Abandonment when that person:

(1) encounters an em dash in a written work;

(2) ceases reading substantially because of said em dash; and

(3) makes a Public Notice of Cessation so that all present may know of the sacrifice.

(b) The offense is a Class B misdemeanor.

Mandatory sentence: The offender shall read one hundred pages of nineteenth-century prose and file a sworn accounting of every dash encountered.

§ 306. Aggravated Em-Dash Forensics

(a) A person commits Aggravated Em-Dash Forensics when, from the presence of one or more em dashes alone, that person purports to determine conclusively the authorship, model provenance, training history, or moral character of the writer.

(b) Aggravated Em-Dash Forensics is a Class A misdemeanor.

Mandatory sentence: Six (6) months during which the offender may communicate only through semicolons; improper comma splices shall toll the sentence.

§ 307. Compulsory Announcement of Non-Reading

(a) A person commits Compulsory Announcement of Non-Reading when, without solicitation, that person announces “stopped reading at the em dash,” “didn’t read, AI,” “I checked out at ‘it’s not this, it’s that,’” or substantially equivalent language.

(b) The first offense is a civil infraction. A third offense within thirty days is a Class C misdemeanor.

Mandatory sentence: The offender shall finish the paragraph before commenting upon it.

§ 308. Antithetical Construction Panic

(a) It shall not be unlawful to dislike the construction “It’s not X, it’s Y.”

(b) A person commits Antithetical Construction Panic when that person encounters such a construction and immediately declares the entire work machine-generated without considering context, authorship, editing, or the inconvenient fact that human beings have used contrastive rhetoric for a very long time.

(c) Antithetical Construction Panic is a Class C misdemeanor.

Mandatory sentence: The offender shall rewrite the complained-of sentence without contrast, parallelism, em dashes, colons, semicolons, or any phrase previously observed on LinkedIn.

§ 309. Recursive AI Discourse

(a) A person commits Recursive AI Discourse when a discussion concerning a substantive topic is converted into a discussion of whether the original post used AI, which is then converted into a discussion of whether accusing the post of using AI was itself written by AI.

(b) Upon the fourth recursive level, the thread is declared a Computational Nuisance and subject to summary abatement.

Mandatory sentence: All participants shall go outside for not less than fifteen (15) minutes.

§ 310. Fraudulent Human Authenticity

(a) A person commits Fraudulent Human Authenticity when that person deliberately introduces spelling errors, malformed punctuation, unnecessary profanity, or the phrase “lol idk” principally to establish that a text was written by a human.

(b) Fraudulent Human Authenticity is a Class B misdemeanor.

Mandatory sentence: The offender’s next professional email shall be transmitted exactly as drafted on the first attempt, without Grammarly, autocorrect, or an LLM.

§ 311. Habitual Discourse Offender

(a) A person convicted of three or more offenses under §§ 305–310 shall be designated a Habitual Discourse Offender.

(b) Such person shall be sentenced to moderation of a public technology forum until able to distinguish criticism of a work from speculation concerning the tools used to create it.

(c) Parole shall not be granted upon the statement “you can just tell.”

§ 312. Sentencing Schedule