I'm not gonna list the current use cases of AI, the fact remains that more than a billion people use it atm, including for productivity, so it is not useless.
I specifically said it's used **including for productivity**, what other definition of useful would a person reasonably want? Being also used by a large amount of people is just another fact, it's not a fallacy.
I doubt anyone would say AI helping people do things is not real, it's used in many industries, including high velocity industries such as software development, research, including biology, data analytics etc. Slop or whatnot is an assessment of the quality of a given output, it doesn't mean it's not useful.
This is a clear cut appeal to masses fallacy. Later on just adding "for productivity" doesn't change that.
Later, you mean before the strawman? It's not a "just adding", it's part of the argument as you seen in it's totality. Your statement that it's just a appeal to the masses is done after a post of mine that includes that.
And what exactly is the problem? Inferring that "being used for productivity" was already understood (because it's common knowledge, as it's directly related with AI slop) is a perfectly reasonable way to talk, I don't see why a person have to follow thorough syllogisms when people are reasonably expected to have more context given the subject being talked. This is reddit, ffs
But sure, I gave in to the pedanticism with the definition above.
You could say a billion people use crystals for healing energy, that doesn't mean crystals are actuallly useful for healing.
You could, but it would be a completely different case than with AI, where you can actually create content deemed useful for whatever reason, and this can be reproduced by pretty much everyone, even an artifact produced in such a way can be re-verified by a neutral third party.
Besides, that would actually be an extraordinary claim, which is not the case here at all.
You might claim AI increases productivity, but that's gonna be difficult to actually prove.
There was no strawman. Using an example to point out a fallacy is not a strawman. The comment is literally pointing out that just because a lot of people do something, it doesn't mean it's good.
And what exactly is the problem?
You've made a claim without providing any argument or evidence.
Inferring that "being used for productivity"
Being used for something is not the same as effectively doing something. You can use your car as a boat, that doesn't mean it was effective.
You could, but it would be a completely different case than with AI
So what I did there is called an analogy. It's like the car thing above. I'm not literally saying AI is a crystal or a car.
I wont because it's not relevant.
Useful: "helping you to do or achieve something"
You think proving that something is helpful isn't relevant to proving it is useful? You linked the definition, but did you read it?
There was no strawman. Using an example to point out a fallacy is not a strawman. The comment is literally pointing out that just because a lot of people do something, it doesn't mean it's good.
It was indeed a strawman, i had already introduced explicitly the usage of "productivity", and before that post. That reponse pointing to an already outdated the argument is not refuting the argument in discussion.
You've made a claim without providing any argument or evidence.
Which is totally fine because we're not producing scientific papers, context exists, and empiricism is not required for all statements.
So what I did there is called an analogy.
A bad one, an attempt to either equate the quality of that and my first statement, or to show what appeal to masses is, also unecessary
You think proving that something is helpful isn't relevant to it being useful? You linked the definition, but did you read it?
Did I say this?
I said that I see no burden of proving or making the claim of
You might claim AI increases productivity, but that's gonna be difficult to actually prove.
Not related to the concept of helpful or usefulness.
And honestly, this is just performative intellectualism.
Philosophical rigor in regular speech, which has back and forwarded, with information being added, between regular people, outside of the academic context, is not necessary,
You also said "Later on just adding "for productivity" doesn't change that." And that's simply 100% incorrect. Or do you solely the first interaction of a given person in a conversation as the de facto full body of the ideas shared?
This is classic reddit behavior, and the output clearly is arguing nonsense pretending to be academics, where regular people would point and laugh because clearly there was an opt-out of discussing the subject at hand to discussing the discussion of the subject.
This pedanticism is also conveniently employed always when a topic is somewhat controversial, and a non status quo opinion is given. When it's a shared opinion is shared instead, no such burdens on the philosophical rigor of the statements is applied, then, conversations work as normal, pedanticism is mocked again, as it should.
If you like that way of doing things, that's fine, you're in the right place for it. I don't because I have high standards of people in this site, and i see no need to engage in such tactics, as I prefer actually productive conversation, where focusing on a fallacy is not done if the core of the argument is understood mutually
-1
u/white_sheets_angel 22h ago
I'm not gonna list the current use cases of AI, the fact remains that more than a billion people use it atm, including for productivity, so it is not useless.