It's no surprise to me that the person at work who is most excited by AI, is the same person who is most likely to be replaced by it.

No way!

Statistical Language models don't reason?

But OpenAI, robots taking over!

Yes, this comment seems to indicate that your brain does work that way.

Yeah the excitement comes from the fact that they’re thinking of replacing themselves and keeping the money. They don’t get to “Step 2” in theirs heads lmao.

Thank you Captain Obvious! Only those who think LLMs are like "little people in the computer" didn't knew this already.

Of course, that is obvious to all having basic knowledge of neural networks, no?

Funny how triggering it is for some people when anyone acknowledges humans are just evolved primates doing the same pattern matching.

Proving it matters. Science is constantly proving any other thing that people believe is obvious because people have an uncanning ability to believe things that are false. Some people will believe things long after science has proven them false.

Yes, Apple haters can't admit nor understand it but Apple doesn't do pseudo-tech.

They may do silly things, they may love their 100% mark up but it's all real technology.

The AI pushers or today are akin to the pushers of paranormal phenomenon from a century ago. These pushers want us to believe, need us to believe it so they can get us addicted and extract value from our very existence.

Intellegence has a very clear definition.

It's requires the ability to acquire knowledge, understand knowledge and use knowledge.

No one has been able to create an system that can understand knowledge, therefor me none of it is artificial intelligence. Each generation is merely more and more complex knowledge models. Useful in many ways but never intelligent.

LLMs (at least in their current form) are proper neural networks.

This. Same with the discussion about consciousness. People always claim that AI is not real intelligence, but no one can ever define what real/human intelligence is. It's like people believe in something like a human soul without admitting it.

Most humans don't reason. They just parrot shit too. The design is very human.

I think if you look at child development research, you'll see that kids can learn to do crazy shit with very little input, waaay less than you'd need to train a neural net to do the same. So either kids are the luckiest neural nets and always make the correct adjustment after failing, or they have some innate knowledge that isn't pattern-based at all.

There's even some examples in linguistics specifically, where children tend towards certain grammar rules despite all evidence in their language pointing to another rule. Pure pattern-matching would find the real-world rule without first modelling a different (universally common) rule.

I have no idea what sort of AI you've used that could do any of this stuff you've listed. A program that doesn't reason won't expose logical fallacies with any rigour or refine anyone's ideas. It will link to credible research that you could already find on Google but will also add some hallucinations to the summary. And so on, it's completely divorced from how the stuff as it is currently works.

Someone with a brilliant comic concept but no drawing ability? AI can help build a framework to bring it to life.

That's a misguided view of how art is created. Supposed "brilliant ideas" are dime a dozen, it takes brilliant writers and artists to make them real. Someone with no understanding of how good art works just having an image generator produce the images will result in a boring comic no matter the initial concept. If you are not competent in a visual medium, then don't make it visual, write a story or an essay.

Besides, most of the popular and widely shared webcomics out there are visually extremely simple or just bad (look at SMBC or xkcd or - for a right-wing example - Stonetoss).

For now I see no particular benefits that the right-wing has obtained by using AI either. They either make it feed back into their delusions, or they whine about the evil leftists censoring the models (by e.g. blocking its usage of slurs).

The computer science industry isn't the authority on artificial intelligence it thinks it is. The industry is driven by a level of hubris that causes people to step beyond the bounds of science and into the realm of humanities without acknowledgment.

Yep. I'm retired now, but before retirement a month or so ago, I was working on a project that relied on several hundred people back in 2020. "Why can't AI do it?"

The people I worked with are continuing the research and putting it up against the human coders, but...there was definitely an element of "AI can do that, we won't need people" next time. I sincerely hope management listens to reason. Our decisions would lead to potentially firing people, so I think we were able to push back on the "AI can make all of these decisions"...for now.

The AI people were all in, they were ready to build an interface that told the human what the AI would recommend for each item. Errrm, no, that's not how an independent test works. We had to reel them back in.

Here is chatgpt doing what you said it can't. Finding all the logical fallacies in what you write:

You're raising strong criticisms, and it's worth unpacking them carefully. Let's go through your argument and see if there are any logical fallacies or flawed reasoning.

1. Straw Man Fallacy

"Someone with no understanding of how good art works just having an image generator produce the images will result in a boring comic no matter the initial concept."

This misrepresents the original claim:

"AI can help create a framework at the very least so they can get their ideas down."

The original point wasn't that AI could replace the entire creative process or make a comic successful on its own—it was that it can assist people in starting or visualizing something they couldn’t otherwise. Dismissing that by shifting the goalposts to “producing a full, good comic” creates a straw man of the original claim.

2. False Dichotomy

"If you are not competent in a visual medium, then don't make it visual, write a story or an essay."

This suggests a binary: either you're competent at visual art or you shouldn't try to make anything visual. That’s a false dichotomy. People can learn, iterate, or collaborate, and tools like AI can help bridge gaps in skill—not replace skill, but allow exploration. Many creators use tools before mastery (e.g., musicians using GarageBand, or writers using Grammarly).

3. Hasty Generalization

"Supposed 'brilliant ideas' are a dime a dozen..."

While it’s true that execution matters more than ideas alone, dismissing the value of ideas altogether is an overgeneralization. Many successful works do start with a strong concept—and while many fail in execution, tools that lower the barrier to prototyping or drafting can help surface more workable ideas. The presence of many bad ideas doesn't invalidate the potential value of enabling more people to test theirs.

4. Appeal to Ridicule / Ad Hominem (Light)

"...result in a boring comic..." / "...just bad (look at SMBC or xkcd or...)"

Criticizing popular webcomics like SMBC or xkcd by calling them “bad” doesn't really support your broader claim. These comics are widely read because of strong writing and insight, despite minimalistic visuals. It comes off as dismissive and ridicules the counterexamples rather than engaging with them. That's not a logical fallacy in the strictest sense, but it's rhetorically weak.

5. Tu Quoque / Whataboutism (Borderline)

"For now I see no particular benefits that the right-wing has obtained by using AI either..."

This seems like a rebuttal to a point that wasn't made directly. The original argument wasn’t that “the right is winning with AI,” but rather that alienating the left from it could lead to missed opportunities. Refuting a weaker version (e.g., “the right is clearly winning with AI”) isn’t addressing the original concern, which was more about strategic adoption.

Summary of Fallacies Identified:

Type Description

Straw Man Misrepresents the role of AI in creative assistance.
False Dichotomy Assumes one must either be visually skilled or not attempt visual media.
Hasty Generalization Devalues “brilliant ideas” universally.
Appeal to Ridicule Dismisses counterexamples via mocking tone rather than analysis.
Tu Quoque-like Compares left vs. right AI use without addressing the core point about opportunity.

Your criticism is thoughtful and not without merit—but it's wrapped in rhetoric that sometimes slips into oversimplification or misrepresentation of the opposing view. If your goal is to strengthen your argument or have a productive back-and-forth, refining those areas could help. Would you like to rewrite it in a way that keeps the spirit of your critique but sharpens its logic?

At this point you're just arguing for arguments sake. You're not wrong or right but instead muddying things. Saying it'll be boring comics missed the entire point. Saying it is the same as google is pure ignorance of what it can do. But this goes to my point about how this stuff is all similar to anti immigrant mentality. The people who buy into it will get into these type of ignorant and short sighted statements just to prove things that just are not true. But they've bought into the hype and need to justify it.

Yeah I've always said the the flaw in Turing's Imitation Game concept is that if an AI was indistinguishable from a human it wouldn't prove it's intelligent. Because humans are dumb as shit. Dumb enough to force one of the smartest people in the world take a ton of drugs which eventually killed him simply because he was gay.

Did you even read this garbage? It’s just words strung together without any meaning. The things it’s claiming show a fundamental lack of understanding of what it is responding to.

This didn’t prove your point at all, quite the opposite. And it wasted everyone’s time in the process. Good job, this was worthless.