This sort of thing has been published a lot for awhile now, but why is it assumed that this isn't what human reasoning consists of? Isn't all our reasoning ultimately a form of pattern memorization? I sure feel like it is. So to me all these studies that prove they're "just" memorizing patterns don't prove anything other than that, unless coupled with research on the human brain to prove we do something different.

LOOK MAA I AM ON FRONT PAGE

The sticky wicket is the proof that humans (functioning 'normally') do more than pattern.

What isn't there to gain?

Its power lies in ingesting language and producing infinite variations. We can feed it talking points, ask it to refine our ideas, test their logic, and even request counterarguments to pressure-test our stance. It helps us build stronger, more resilient narratives.

We can use it to make memes. Generate images. Expose logical fallacies. Link to credible research. It can detect misinformation in real-time and act as a force multiplier for anyone trying to raise awareness or push back on disinfo.

Most importantly, it gives a voice to people with strong ideas who might not have the skills or confidence to share them. Someone with a brilliant comic concept but no drawing ability? AI can help build a framework to bring it to life.

Sure, it has flaws. But rejecting it outright while the right embraces it? That’s beyond shortsighted it’s self-sabotage. And unfortunately, after the last decade, that kind of misstep is par for the course.

ITT: people who obviously did not study computer science or AI at at least an undergraduate level.

Y'all are too patient. I can't be bothered to spend the time to give people free lessons.

Not when large swaths of people are being told to use it everyday. Upper management has bought in on it.

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).

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

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.

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.

LOOK MAA I AM ON FRONT PAGE

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

Yah of course they do they’re computers

That's not really a valid argument for why, but yes the models which use training data to assemble statistical models are all bullshitting. TBH idk how people can convince themselves otherwise.

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

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

It's not that institutionalized people don't follow "set" pattern matches. That's why you're getting downvotes.

Some of those humans can operate with the same brain rules alright. They may even be more efficient at it than you and I may. The higher level functions is a different thing.

LOOK MAA I AM ON FRONT PAGE

That’s absolutely what it is. It’s a pattern on here. Any acknowledgment of humans being animals or less than superior gets hit with pushback.

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.