this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
915 points (98.5% liked)
Fuck AI
7069 readers
1843 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's far more useful for fascists and capitalists than it is for the average person, so... disagreed that it's a logical fallacy. It's a tool for fascists.
You'll note that I used single quotes instead of double quotes. I was arguing against one commonly-cited (though not necessarily by you) benefit of AI to counter your point that "not all uses of AI are bad".
It seemed a little more tactful than, "No, your CSA-generating machine does not justify the loss of the Amazon Rainforest."
All uses which don't directly or indirectly save lives are bad so long as they have a negative impact on the environment.
I never even defended AI, so all your arguments against it are strawmen because they misrepresent the point that I was making (which doesn't contradict all this stuff you're adding about why it's bad; again, if you simply listed the reasons why it's bad then I would be agreeing with you).
And do you not know what a logical fallacy is, or how logical validity works? A fallacious argument can incidentally be true, but that doesn't make it a valid argument.
"If I'm anemic, then it's raining outside. I'm anemic, therefore it's raining outside."
This argument commits a fallacy, because the consequent does not follow from the antecedent. The conclusion could happen to be true, but that doesn't matter. It could be raining outside, and I could make this argument, but that wouldn't make it valid just because the conclusion is true. The soundness of the premises and conclusion don't matter when the argumentative structure itself is invalid.
I never said "Actually, AI is good." All I said was "Just because fascists use it, does not make it 'the tool of fascism.'"
There are plenty of valid critiques you can make about AI. Focus on those. But if you make a fallacious argument, don't assume I'm defending AI just because I point that out.