[AftHurrahWinch]

1. A bot-generated argument is still an argument. I can't make claims about the truth or falsity based on the enunciator, that's simply ad hominem.

2. A bot-generated image is not a record of photon-emissions in the physical world. When I look at photos, they need to be records of the physical world, or they're a creative work.

I think you can't rationally apply the same standard to these 2 things.

[rightbyte]

> 1. A bot-generated argument is still an argument. I can't make claims about the truth or falsity based on the enunciator, that's simply ad hominem.

In classical forums arguments are often some form of stamina contest and bots will always win those.

But ye it is like a troll accusation.

[foobiekr]

The problem is the bullshit asymmetry and engaging in good faith.

AI users aren’t investing actual work and can generate reams if bullshit that puts three burden on others to untangle. And they also aren’t engaging in good faith.

[AftHurrahWinch]

Some discussions are dialectic, where a group is cooperatively reasoning toward a shared truth. In dialectical discussions, good faith is crucial. AI can't participate in dialectical work. Most public discourse is not dialectical, it is rhetorical. The goal is to persuade the audience, not your interlocutor. You aren't "yelling into the void", you're advocating to the jury.

Rhetoric is the model used in debate. Proponents don't expect to change their Opponent's mind, and vice versa. In fact, if your opponent is obstinate (or a non-sentient text generator), it is easier to demonstrate the strength of your position to the gallery.

People reference Brandolini's "bullshit asymmetry principle" but don't differentiate between dialectical and rhetorical contexts. In a rhetorical context, the strategy is to demonstrate to the audience that your interlocutor is generating text with an indifference to truth. You can then pivot, forcing them to defend their method rather than making you debunk their claims.

[virtualbluesky]

Ad hominem may require a human on the receiving end, no?

[AftHurrahWinch]

If a parrot squawks, "1,345 multiplied by 785 equals 1,055,825", you would be logically and factually incorrect to say 'Well, that's wrong because how would a bird know".

The historical meaning of the word 'hominem' isn't crucial to the universal logical principle of 'ad hominem'. If xenoorganisms beneath the ice-sheets of Titan are dismissing each other's ideas out of hand, they too may be committing this fallacy. The fallacy is the rejection of an argument based on its source rather than its content.