Comment on For the First Time, Artificial Intelligence Is Being Used at a Nuclear Power Plant

pyre@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• Takumidesh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Also, it’s not like the paperwork isn’t important.

  source
• scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  That’s textbook slippery slope logical fallacy.

  source

  • pyre@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    it’s not actually. there’s barely an intermediate step between what’s happening now and what I’m suggesting it will lead to.

    this is not “if we allow gay marriage people will start marrying goats”. it’s “if this company is allowed to cut corners here they’ll be cutting corners in other places”. that’s not a slope; it’s literally the next step.

    source

    • scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      You may think it’s as plausible as you like. Obviously you do or you wouldn’t have said it. It’s still by definition absolutely a slippery slope logical fallacy. A little will always lead to more, therefore a little is a lot. This is textbook. It has nothing to do with companies, computers, or goats.

      source

      • pyre@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        this is textbook fallacy fallacy

        source
  • Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Slippery slope arguments aren’t inherently fallicious.

    source
  • TheOakTree@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    True, but it you change the argument from “this will happen” to “this with happen more frequently” then it’s still a very reasonable observation.

    source

    • scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      All predictions in this vein are invalid.

      If you want to say “even this little bit is unsettling and we should be on guard for more,” fine.

      That’s different from “if you think this is only a small amount you are wrong because a small amount will become a large amount.”

      source