[JumpCrisscross]

> sad that just pointing out logical mistakes in someone's post gets you attacked

They didn’t. They mis-applied fallacies and in one case made one up. There was no substantial good-faith response to OP’s argument. Instead we got a shallow dismissal masked in the language (but not substance) of logic.

It was fun to engage with! But not meaningful. The online-commenting equivalent of scrolling short-form videos and getting enraged or delighted or awe-struck for a picosecond.

[j4hdufd8]

Can you elaborate how the other fallacies were mis-applied, please?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Can you elaborate how the other fallacies were mis-applied

Sure. OP didn’t ever reject the developers’ arguments. He’s criticising their methods for activism. But, even if OP were attacking their arguments:

OP doesn’t reject the developers’ methods (remember, their arguments are never contested) because of who is speaking, but how. To the extent it could be mistaken for ad hominem, it would be in tone policing, but that’s not what you said and it is not true because OP was citing Apple’s language, as evidenced by the quotes.

Appeal to corporate omniscience is not a fallacy. (And OP doesn’t cite Google as evidence for their arguments, so no appeal to authority.)

Circular reasoning doesn’t apply, even to your example, because complaints not mattering doesn’t cause Google to expect them.

False dichotomy does not apply because OP never argued any dichotomy. The closest they came was hyperbolic language (“perfectly” and “completely and fully”). But that’s closer to modal scope than any dichotomy, possibly fallacy of necessity since it implies future limits.

Arguments rarely require citing the formal or informal fallacy invoked. Instead, just respond to the argument. This is a great case of AI corrupting a discussion through derailment and false confidence.

[j4hdufd8]

> Arguments rarely require citing the formal or informal fallacy invoked.

I disagree. If I suspect a fallacy I will cite it in your face.

I also disagree with your analysis of the fallacies that the AI identified. I do not care to continue or have time to elaborate much though. Sorry, I just wanted to let you know I strongly disagree with how you are all hurt by perfectly fine AI-generated arguments.

Btw can you all please tell me just one more time that the "appeal to corporate omniscience" isn't in the Wikipedia list of fallacies (which is just as arbitrary a source as a good LLM)? Tomato tomato, arguing semantics is soooo boring

[JumpCrisscross]

> If I suspect a fallacy I will cite it in your face

And my cat will yell before his dinner time. We all have useless impulses. The question is if it accomplishes anything.

Also, you didn’t suspect anything. A language model thought for you. Your role was in copying and pasting. Not understanding or commanding.

> disagree with your analysis of the fallacies that the AI identified

Sure.

For what it’s worth, I ran your comment—over drinks—past a professor of philosophy who has published peer-reviewed research out of Columbia. He said I was too gentle. It’s gibberish of a form that wouldn’t make it past undergrad formal logic.

We have no doubt you and plenty of others will regurgitate AI tripe with confidence. (This happened with television and organised religion in the past.) And I’ll admit I haven’t found, yet, how to profit off that common temptation other than investing in the companies that facilitate it. But I think I will, because folks who will double down on hallucinated constructs are commonplace.

> can you all please tell me just one more time that the "appeal to corporate omniscience" isn't in the Wikipedia list of fallacies

It’s in no philosophy text, either. Because it is, in itself, an appeal to authority. (Incorporation isn’t a logical primitive. It is a social construct.)

> which is just as arbitrary a source as a good LLM

To the extent a peer-reviewed paper is the same as a grad student, sure.

(There is also rich irony in a corporate LLM hallucinating a fallacy about corporate omniscience. The stupid part, here, is the doubling down.)

[j4hdufd8]

> For what it’s worth, I ran your comment—over drinks—past a professor of philosophy who has published peer-reviewed research out of Columbia. He said I was too gentle. It’s gibberish of a form that wouldn’t make it past undergrad formal logic.

Man I'm legit super interested in this. Roast me a bit more please. Why is it such an amateur line of thinking? The OP's argument is f*cking circular, you should discard the argument completely if you care about logic, no? I don't see it, please help me see it. TEACH ME.

> Also, you didn’t suspect anything. A language model thought for you. Your role was in copying and pasting. Not understanding or commanding.

No, you are assuming, why are you assuming I can't think? Notice, once more, the use of the basic ad hominem (how can I not mention this?). Why do you bring up your peer-reviewed friend? This is the appeal to authority fallacy again, are you freaking kidding me? Why don't you share with us why my line of reasoning is childish or whatever, instead of "my PhD friend said no"?

I smelled circular logic and decided to check with Claude - that's it buddy! It should NOT be relevant whether or not I copied bits from AI, because it is another fallacy. Would you pick on me if I had consulted a dictionary or used Wikipedia to double check fallacies?

> It’s in no philosophy text, either. Because it is, in itself, an appeal to authority. (Incorporation isn’t a logical primitive. It is a social construct.)

100% I will eat shit on this one detail only, of course the LLM went off the rails a little bit here, but why did everyone get so stuck on a silly rephrasing/aliasing of canonical-form fallacies, when everyone can clearly sense the canonical-form that it points to.