[parineum]

Not really. The idea that reality lies _in_ the middle is fairly coherent. It's not, on it's face, absolutely true but there are and infinite number of options between two outcomes so the odds are overwhelmingly in the favor that the truth lies somewhere in between. Is either side totally right about every single point of contention between them? Probably not, so the answer is likely in the middle. The fallacy is a lot easier to see when you're arguing about one precise point. In that case, someone is probably right and wrong. But, in cases where a side is talking about a complex event with a multitude of data points, both extremes are likely not completely correct and the answer does, indeed, lie in between the extremes.

The fallacy is that the true lies _at_ the middle, not in the middle.

[gitremote]

Flat-earthers: The earth is flat.

Round-earthers: The earth is round.

"Reality lies in the middle" argument: The earth is oblong, not a perfect sphere, so both sides were right.

[missinglugnut]

If we're gonna be pendantic about fallacies, you're using argument by analogy and it's not in any way comparable to the claims GP made about OpenAI.

[gitremote]

It's not an argument by analogy. It's a reductio ad absurdum on the generalization that reality always lies in the middle but not always at the exact middle.

[parineum]

"Round" does not mean spherical and both of these claims are falsifiable and mutually exclusive.

The AI situation doesn't not have two mutually exclusive claims, it has two claims on the opposite sides of economic and cultural impact that are differences of magnitude and direction.

AI can both be a bubble and revolutionary, just like the internet.

[philistine]

You're thinking in one dimension. Truth. Add another dimension, time, and now we're talking about reality.

Ultimately, if both sides have a true argument, the real issue is which will happen first in time? Will AI change the world before the whole circular investment vehicle implode? Or after, like happened with the dotcom boom?

[suddenlybananas]

>infinite number of options between two outcomes so the odds are overwhelmingly in the favor that the truth lies somewhere in between

This is totally fallacious.

[parineum]

It isn't.

"AI is a bubble" and "AI is going to replace all human jobs" is, essentially, the two extremes I'm seeing. AI replacing some jobs (even if partially) and the bubble-ness of the boom are both things that exist on a line between two points. Both can be partially true and exist anywhere on the line between true and false.

No jobs replaced<-------------------------------------->All jobs replaced

Bubble crashes the economy and we all end up dead in a ditch from famine<---------------------------------------->We all end up super rich in the post scarcity economy

[mamonster]

It is completely fallacious.

For one, in higher dimensions, most of the volume of a hypersphere is concentrated near the border.

Secondly, and it is somewhat related, you are implicitly assuming some sort of convexity argument (X is maybe true, Y is maybe true, 0.5X + 0.5 Y is maybe true). Why?

[suddenlybananas]

I agree there is a large continuum of possibilities, but that does not mean that something in the middle is more likely, that is the fallacious step in the reasoning.