The point and substance of an argument are made with more precise and nuanced words, not by using less of them poorly. There is no point and substance to deliberately trying to portray this as generative AI, which a lot of the comments are trying to do.
For example, you've said nothing and have absolutely not made the point and substance of your problem with DLSS 5 clear, while I actually have. People would have to take wild guesses to try to get to "the point and substance" of your issue with it.
Perhaps what you are actually referring to is the tendency for people to justify lying and throwing shade about a thing if they hate the thing associated with it enough. That's just throwing sloppy shade to me. Judging by the downvotes and the correlation that exists between this tendency and them, I suspect this might apply here instead.
I've actually just been corrected, this was referred to employ some form of generative AI by Jensen. It's also significantly different enough to what I generally thought of as AI slop and my issues with it that it could also be said that I am a supporter of generative AI now. I am surprised by the application of the label, but it does prove me wrong.