Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

UsaInfation t1_j1lnrkl wrote

Some (not all) logical fallacies in text above are:

  • False Dilemma: "Some argue that the ability of AI algorithms to generate original works of art threatens to make human artists obsolete and that the concept of individual style is therefore no longer relevant."
  • Appeal to Fear: "There is concern that AI algorithms could be used to generate fake news or propaganda, or to create revenge porn or other types of non-consensual content."
  • Slippery Slope: "This type of technology has the potential to be highly disruptive and could be used to manipulate public opinion or create propaganda."
  • Appeal to Ignorance: "Ultimately, the impact of generative AI art on society and culture will depend on how it is used and embraced by the wider community."
  • Red Herring: "Is the concept of individual style still relevant in the age of generative AI art?"
  • Hasty Generalization: "At its most basic, generative AI art is the art that is created using algorithms or machine learning techniques."
  • Non Sequitur: "This can take many different forms, from paintings and drawings to music and even poetry."
  • False Analogy: "One of the earliest examples of generative AI art is “AARON,” a program developed in the 1970s by artist Harold Cohen, AARON was designed to generate original works of art in the form of drawings and paintings, and Cohen used it to create thousands of works over the course of his career."
  • Straw Man: "Some have raised concerns about the potential for AI algorithms to do harm or be used for nefarious purposes."
  • Circular Reasoning: "It is often thought that this individual style is an inherent part of an artist’s identity and is the result of their personal experiences, influences, and creative vision."
  • Ad Hominem: "The emergence of generative AI art has led some to question the validity of this idea."
  • Bandwagon: "As the capabilities of generative AI art continue to improve, the question of how it will impact the art world and society as a whole becomes increasingly pressing."
  • False Cause: "The history of generative AI art can be traced back to the early days of artificial intelligence research."
  • Begging the Question: "As generative AI art continues to evolve and become more prevalent, it is important to consider the ethical implications of its use."
  • Equivocation: "Some believe that generative AI art will simply complement and enhance traditional forms of art, rather than replace human artists altogether."
  • Non-factual Appeal: "Regardless of which perspective is ultimately correct, it is clear that the emergence of generative AI art raises important questions about the role of human artists in the art world and the definition of art itself."

​

Is this also WRONG USE of AI?

8

PinguinGirl03 t1_j1lqmlz wrote

Did you actually read your AI generated answer? It incorrectly applied nearly all those fallacies.

edit: scrap "nearly", I think it got them all wrong.

13

AndromedaAnimated t1_j1lrbhb wrote

The „appeal to fear“ is the one that is correct in my opinion. Which other fallacies would you see as applied correctly here?

Regardless, it’s sweet and fascinating that an AI writes such a list so eloquently.

4

PinguinGirl03 t1_j1lw7nc wrote

No, appeal to fear is not displayed here.

Appeal to fear would have to take the form:

> Either P or Q is true.

> Q is frightening.

> Therefore, P is true.

There is no appeal to fear here, just a listening of possible negative effects.

Looking closer, I don't think ANY of those examples are actually the listed fallacy.

4

AndromedaAnimated t1_j1m0h13 wrote

Thank you for explaining your view on that!

I have understood it being the fallacy as following:

Q being propaganda and fake news and P being use of AI - despite fake news and propaganda being doable completely without AI as well and happening all the time already plus AI also being usable to distinguish between fake and real news too and as such not necessarily leading to an increase of propaganda/fake news.

Or: IF you accept AI as good, THEN you will be victim of fake news and propaganda.

Of course IF we assume a causal relationship between AI and fake news/propaganda, THEN it would not be a fallacy anymore.

1

PinguinGirl03 t1_j1mpnnp wrote

Logical fallacies can only describe flaws in the structure of an argument, not whether the axioms themselves hold true.

3

AndromedaAnimated t1_j1ncsoj wrote

But is it still a fallacy if there is an actual causal relationship? As in - if there is time/temporal precedence and covariation and other factors cannot explain it „casual relationship“.

Wouldn’t that mean that one argument could be implied with the other correctly? This would be not an error in reasoning (structure) anymore then, or would it still be?

Isn’t that what you said by „listing consequences“?

Sorry for asking you again, but it is a field with which I only partly have experience with (I‘m the „empirical science“ type… the only fallacy that has been interesting to me previously was artefacts in statistical analysis) and your explanations are short and understandable and to the point and help me understand it. Thank you!

1

LoneRedWolf24 t1_j1lzdob wrote

Yeah this reply hurt to read. It's not the wrong us of AI, but it's a poor execution lol.

2

Silly_Objective_5186 t1_j1lvg58 wrote

it is. the non sequitur and straw man aren’t really those fallacies. seems like it is a list of fallacies with random quotes.

4

_Daneel_Olivaw OP t1_j1lo7qs wrote

how did you generate this list so quickly?

3

UsaInfation t1_j1lod2x wrote

With AI, just copied text, added prompt: "Logical fallacies in text above are:" and it started writing.

10

_Daneel_Olivaw OP t1_j1lofad wrote

amazing.

I'll have to rethink some of the post, I guess :O

3

UsaInfation t1_j1lp2zt wrote

People mislead themselves all the time by socially programmed ideas they picked up from the outside. Plenty of mines to look out for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

2

_Daneel_Olivaw OP t1_j1lpalz wrote

sounds like this might be a trap a lot of people who demonize generative art / AI art fall into, too. preprogrammed biases. I'll have to give it a good think. Thanks for the feedback!

2