| HN Mirror

Then please educate me on how the logical fallacies are misapplied.

In short, what it comes down to, is you do not know this to be true: "Detractors from AI often refuse to learn how to use it or argue that it doesn't do everything perfectly so you shouldn't use it." If you do know that to be true, please provide the citations. Sociology is a bitch, because we like to make stereotypes but it turns out that you really don't know anything about the individual you are talking to. You don't know their experiences, their learnings, their age.

Further, humans tend to have very small sample sizes based on their experiences. If you met one detractor every second for the rest of the year, your experiences would still not be statistically significant.

You can say, in your experience, in your conversations, but as a general true-ism - you need to provide some data. Further, even in your conversations, do you always really know how much the other person knows? For example, you assumed (or at least heavily implied) that I just learned the name of logical fallacies. I'm actually quite old, it's been a long while since I learned the name of logical fallacies. Regardless, it does not matter so long as the fallacies are correctly applied. Which I think they were, and I'll defend it in depth compared to your shallow dismissal.

Quoting from earlier:

> Detractors from AI often refuse to learn how to use it.. you have to learn how to use it well before you can have a sensible opinion about it.

Clearly, if you don't like AI, you just have not learned enough about it. This argument assumes that detractors are not coming from a place of experience. This is an no-true-scotsman. They wouldn't be detractors if they had more experience, you just need to do it better! The assumption of the experience level of detractors gives away the fallacy. Clearly detractors just have not learned enough.

From a definition of no-true-scotsman [1], "The no true Scotsman fallacy is the attempt to defend a generalization by denying the validity of any counterexamples given." In this case, the counterexamples provided by detractors are discounted because they (assumingly) simply have not learned how to use AI. A detractor could say "this technology does not work", and of course they are 'wrong' because they don't know how to use it well enough. Thus, the generalization is that AI is useful and the detractors are wrong due to a lack of knowledge (and so implying if they knew more, they would not be detractors).

-----

I'll define here that straw man is misrepresenting a counter argument in a weaker form, and then showing that weaker form to be false in order to discredit the entirety of the argument.

There multiple straw man:

> The same disconnect was in place for every major piece of technology, from mechanical weaving, to mechanical computing, to motorized carriages, to synthesized music. You can go back and read the articles written about these technologies and they're nearly identical to what the AI detractors have been saying... They try to frame it in moral terms.

Perhaps the disconnect is actually different. I'd say it is. Because there is no fear of job loss from AI (from this detractor at least) these examples are not relevant. That makes them a strawman.

> But at heart the objections are about the fear of one's skills becoming economically obsolete.

So:

  (1) The argument of detractors is morality based

  (2) The argument of detractors is rooted in the fear of "becoming economically obsolete".

I'd say the strongest arguments of detractors is that the technology simply doesn't work well. Period. If that is the case, then there is NO fear of "becoming economically obsolete."

Let's look at the original statement:

> Detractors say it's the process and learning that builds depth.

Which means detractors are saying that AI tools are bad because they prohibit learning. Yet, now we have words put in their mouths that the detractors actually fear becoming 'economically obsolete' and it's similar to other examples that did not prove to be the case. That is exactly a weaker form of the counter argument that is then discredited through the examples of synthesized music, etc..

So, it's not the case that AI hinders learning, it's that the detractors are afraid AI will take their jobs and they are wrong because there are similar examples where that was not the case. That's a strawman.

[1] https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/no-true-scotsman-fallacy/