Inside the booming business fueling the AI slop tsunami

AI slop is not flooding YouTube by accident. It is spreading because it is profitable, often extraordinarily so.

Kapwing’s research suggests that some of the platform’s most prominent AI-generated channels may be earning millions of dollars annually, despite producing content widely criticised as creatively empty or ethically questionable.

Millions from mass production

Using Social Blade estimates, Kapwing found that the most successful AI slop channels generate seven-figure annual revenues. Bandar Apna Dost alone is estimated to earn more than $4 million per year, with South Korea’s Three Minutes Wisdom close behind.

Most of these channels have published the bulk of their content only in recent months, indicating that the financial upside is both rapid and scalable. As long as view counts translate directly into ad revenue, the incentive to produce more slop remains overwhelming.

YouTube’s uneasy position

YouTube publicly frames generative AI as a creative tool. CEO Neal Mohan has compared its impact on video to the synthesizer’s effect on music, arguing that the percentage of AI involvement matters less than human intent.

At the same time, YouTube risks alienating advertisers if their brands are routinely paired with content perceived as low-value or manipulative. The platform benefits from engagement but depends on trust to sustain its ad economy.

Ethical and environmental costs

Beyond monetisation, AI slop raises deeper concerns. Many videos repurpose copyrighted characters, styles, or narratives without consent. Creativity is displaced by repetition. And the environmental cost of generating and hosting millions of disposable videos is non-trivial, consuming energy and compute resources at scale.

There is also a psychological dimension. Repeated exposure to synthetic imagery exploits well-documented cognitive effects, increasing the risk of misinformation, emotional manipulation, and desensitisation.

A race the platform designed

AI slop thrives because it aligns perfectly with algorithmic incentives. Speed, volume, and retention matter more than originality or intent. Unless those incentives change, the flood will continue.

The question is no longer whether AI will shape YouTube. It is whether YouTube can still shape what AI becomes on its platform.

Sources: Kapwing AI Slop Report; Social Blade; Wired; The Guardian.

This article is made and published by Asger Risom, who may have used AI in the preparation