Literally what I’m talking about. They have been pushing anti AI propaganda to alienate the left from embracing it while the right embraces it. You’re proving my point.
Literally what I’m talking about. They have been pushing anti AI propaganda to alienate the left from embracing it while the right embraces it. You’re proving my point.
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 hours ago
That depends on your assumption that the left would have anything relevant to gain by embracing AI (whatever that’s actually supposed to mean).
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
What isn’t there to gain.
It’s power is literally to ingest language and produce all kinds of variance. We can give it talking points and ask to improve on our ideas or ask if the logic is sound. We can build good arguments and ask to give counter arguments to see how it stands.
We can use it to create memes. Create images. Find logical errors. Link to Research. It can be used to detect misinformation. It can act like a forced multiplier. It gives people who have great ideas a voice where they normally might not have felt confident in their ability. Like maybe someone had an idea to produce a comic but can’t draw. It can help create a framework at the very least so they can get their ideas down. It has flaws for sure. But it’s a great tool. Alienating the left from it while the right embraces it just seems so comically dumb and lacking of any common sense from the left. But given the past decade, it’s pretty typical.
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours ago
I have no idea what sort of AI you’ve used that could do any of this stuff you’ve listed. A program that doesn’t reason won’t expose logical fallacies with any rigour or refine anyone’s ideas. It will link to credible research that you could already find on Google but will also add some hallucinations to the summary. Etc., it’s completely divorced from how the stuff as it is currently works.
That’s a misguided view of how art is created. Supposed “brilliant ideas” are dime a dozen, it takes brilliant writers and artists to make them real. Someone with no understanding of how good art works just having an image generator produce the images will result in a boring comic no matter the initial concept. If you are not competent in a visual medium, then don’t make it visual, write a story or an essay.
Besides, most of the popular and widely shared webcomics out there are visually extremely simple or just bad (look at SMBC or xkcd or - for a right-wing example - Stonetoss).
For now I see no particular benefits that the right-wing has obtained by using AI. They either make it feed back into their delusions, or they whine about the evil leftists censoring the models (by e.g. blocking its usage of slurs).
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Here is chatgpt doing what you said it can’t. Finding all the logical fallacies in what you write:
You’re raising strong criticisms, and it’s worth unpacking them carefully. Let’s go through your argument and see if there are any logical fallacies or flawed reasoning.
This misrepresents the original claim:
The original point wasn’t that AI could replace the entire creative process or make a comic successful on its own—it was that it can assist people in starting or visualizing something they couldn’t otherwise. Dismissing that by shifting the goalposts to “producing a full, good comic” creates a straw man of the original claim.
This suggests a binary: either you’re competent at visual art or you shouldn’t try to make anything visual. That’s a false dichotomy. People can learn, iterate, or collaborate, and tools like AI can help bridge gaps in skill—not replace skill, but allow exploration. Many creators use tools before mastery (e.g., musicians using GarageBand, or writers using Grammarly).
While it’s true that execution matters more than ideas alone, dismissing the value of ideas altogether is an overgeneralization. Many successful works do start with a strong concept—and while many fail in execution, tools that lower the barrier to prototyping or drafting can help surface more workable ideas. The presence of many bad ideas doesn’t invalidate the potential value of enabling more people to test theirs.
Criticizing popular webcomics like SMBC or xkcd by calling them “bad” doesn’t really support your broader claim. These comics are widely read because of strong writing and insight, despite minimalistic visuals. It comes off as dismissive and ridicules the counterexamples rather than engaging with them. That’s not a logical fallacy in the strictest sense, but it’s rhetorically weak.
This seems like a rebuttal to a point that wasn’t made directly. The original argument wasn’t that “the right is winning with AI,” but rather that alienating the left from it could lead to missed opportunities. Refuting a weaker version (e.g., “the right is clearly winning with AI”) isn’t addressing the original concern, which was more about strategic adoption.
Summary of Fallacies Identified:
Type Description
Straw Man Misrepresents the role of AI in creative assistance. False Dichotomy Assumes one must either be visually skilled or not attempt visual media. Hasty Generalization Devalues “brilliant ideas” universally. Appeal to Ridicule Dismisses counterexamples via mocking tone rather than analysis. Tu Quoque-like Compares left vs. right AI use without addressing the core point about opportunity.
Your criticism is thoughtful and not without merit—but it’s wrapped in rhetoric that sometimes slips into oversimplification or misrepresentation of the opposing view. If your goal is to strengthen your argument or have a productive back-and-forth, refining those areas could help. Would you like to rewrite it in a way that keeps the spirit of your critique but sharpens its logic?