• ISO@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Refuting the genetic fallacy with appeal to authority is equally fallacious.

    And there are plenty of inept and unintelligent people in the C++ scene anyway. Ironically, someone active (or used to be) in committees even thought ChatGPT surpassed human intelligence years ago, and started to “contribute” on that basis (and more ironically, that wasn’t the semi-scandal that caught him out).

    The genetic fallacy is fallacious on its own. Always. There is no further proof needed to point to it being contextually applicable. And in your case, that attempted proof was unhelpful and in itself fallacious.

    • StripedMonkey@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m not appealing to authority. I’m pointing out that they’re not a bot. As I said in my first post, I wouldn’t claim it’s entirely human generated, I have no idea one way or another. What I said to start with and now is that it’s worth addressing the Blogpost on its merits not on its use of emdashes.

      It’s crazy to me that you think I’m even saying there smart/clever/whatever and could do no wrong. The only thing I’m appealing to is the evidence that they exist.