This is insane, there should be fines for frivolous lawsuits like this.

I understand that was meant as sarcasm, but actually they have become cheaper, in the way that new cheap EV models are arriving with much better range than previous cheap models.

I don’t get the relevance of that link, it talks about logical falacies like:

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

I don’t see how that’s relevant, there is no way that can be seen as an ad hominem. The entire piece seems to be like that. And obviously ad hominem is not a logical fallacy as in flawed use of actual logic like boolean logic. And obviously explaining how and argument is wrong, is not an ad hominem. That’s normal discourse to progress on the issue.

But this part:

Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.

I believe I have CLEARLY shown that the comment “you are hurt and angry” is exactly that. If it’s not an argument based on his (wrong) interpretation of my person, then what is it?

From wikipedia which is way more concise, and actually talks about what an ad hominem is instead of what it is not:

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

Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument.

In this case me being emotional.
If he writes, you are wrong because you have a big nose. That’s an obvious ad hominem. You are wrong because you are being emotional is an equally obvious ad hominem. They are the exact same fallacy as writing you are wrong because you are an idiot.

your fallacious claim that the person committed an ad hominem

I’m surprised you still consider it fallacious?

THIS PART IS THE PERSON’S ARGUMENT,

Yes I know, it’s the way the argument is put with “You have to understand”, as if I wasn’t aware of a very obvious fact.
Put together with the bubble comment, he argues like a camouflaged MAGA, using “you too” arguments.

Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said.

I took the part that was essential. Your claim about the below is essentially the same argument.

Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot

That’s the same as your argument is wrong, because you are angry and hurt, (and therefore not rational). Both are attacks on the person and not the argument. Although one is more polite than the other.

And oh he also claimed i was living in a bubble, so he actually made 3 comments that were ill camouflaged personal attacks, first on my emotional state, 2nd on my rationality, and finally claiming I’m uninformed from living in a bubble.

Yet I’m the one downvoted for calling his ad hominem out.
The fact that X is used outside USA is obvious, thinking he needs to “explain” that is ridiculous, and I live in EU, so I think I’m aware of that. And Xitter definitely also has a fascist agenda outside USA, but maybe he isn’t aware of that?

None of the 3 attacks (non arguments) were ever qualified any further, probably because he can’t.

But I understand why you are hurt and angry, but you must understand you are wrong, because “obvious fact”, and you live in a Bubble.

So do you think that’s an OK comment to our discussion? Because that’s EXACTLY what the comment by NoiseColor to me boils down to. It’s an even bigger ad hominem when put together.

A statement is only an ad hominem if 1) it’s attempting to refute an argument 2) by attacking the character/motive of the person

Which is EXACTLY what he did. And I even explained that in my previous post.

He/She doesn’t understand anything, he/she doesn’t know me.

If the comment was along the lines of: I understand IF you are hurt and angry, it would be different and not presumptuous. But that he continues with: “But you have to understand…” Like he is talking to a child, confirms the interpretation of an ad hominem IMO."

But thanks for pointing out a possibly poorly worded good intention. But the way he wrote it, it looks like an ad hominem to me.

And which are those? There is no technology all major tech companies have invested in like AI AFAIK.
Maybe the dot com wave way back, but are you arguing the Internet came to nothing?

AI is already VERY successful in some areas, when you take a photo, it is treated with AI features to improve the image, and when editing photos on your phone, the more sophisticated options are powered by AI. Almost all new cars have AI features.
These are practical everyday uses, you don’t even have to think about when using them.
But it’s completely irrelevant if I can see use cases that are sustainable or not. The fact is that major tech companies are investing billions in this.
Of course all the biggest tech companies could all be wrong, but I bet they researched the issue more than me before investing.
Show me by what logic you believe to know better.

The claim that it needs to be strong AI to be useful is ridiculous.

saying every X user is a fascist seams an oversimplification.

That’s a straw man, nobody I saw here claimed that. The claim is that they don’t mind fascism. Which is not the same.
You can take a country with only 10%, if the remaining 90% remain passive. Staying at Xitter is remaining passive about their fascist propaganda.

I think you are confused, this is not lemmy.ml, and lemmy is open source, which is the part where it definitely becomes a false equivalence.
Because just because the developers may be communists, that has zero bearing on the content of lemmy.world.
The developers do not own lemmy. And do not claim control of the platform.
Musk is a fascist who owns and control twitter, and has used it to push his fascist agenda, spending $40 billion to be able to do that!

Lemmy is by the people for the people.
Xitter is owned and controlled by the worlds richest narcissist, who has claimed total control, and is using it to push fascism.

So very much a false equivalence.

I see you are unable to actually argue your point, and instead choose to continue with the ad hominem.
I’m still interested to hear what bubble it is you consider me to be in?

I understand you are hurt and angry.

That’s ad hominem.

But you have to understand there are people out there from all around the world

That doesn’t change anything, whatever country you are from, using Xitter means you are using and thereby supporting a fascist platform.

You are in your own bubble

OK, and which bubble is that?
Seems to me that the ones in a bubble are those that continue to use Xitter, oblivious to it supporting fascism, or accepting that it does. Now THAT’s being in a bubble.

False equivalence.

that have no contact with politics

Ergo they are not against fascism. Which means they are OK with it, because they don’t care either way.
Good job, you just helped prove the point.

who ate firmly against fascism

Eat the rich. 😋

Ooohh if it’s for MUSIC I guess it’s OK to be a fascist.
But you know the bands go where teir followers are right? And he is supporting bands that ALSO don’t have a problem with fascism.
It goes both ways.

So because there aren’t other options that are as good for your personal interests, you are OK with using a fascist supporting platform. But somehow you think it’s unfair to say you are sort of OK with fascism, since you are using a clearly fascist supporting platform.

You know, that’s called compromising your ideals for convenience. And if you are American you got what you deserve with Trump.

Seems to me the rationale is flawed. Even if it isn’t strong or general AI, LLM based AI has found a lot of uses. I also don’t recognize the claimed ignorance among people working with it, about the limitations of current AI models.

He is writing about LLM mainly, and that is absolutely AI, it’s just not strong AI or general AI (AGI).
You can’t invent your own meaning for existing established terms.