I want to let people know why I’m strictly against using AI in everything I do without sounding like an ‘AI vegan’, especially in front of those who are genuinely ready to listen and follow the same.
Any sources I try to find to cite regarding my viewpoint are either mild enough to be considered AI generated themselves or filled with extremist views of the author. I want to explain the situation in an objective manner that is simple to understand and also alarming enough for them to take action.
More likely they feel insulted by people saying how “brain-rotted” they are.
What would the inoffensive way of phrasing it be?
Genuinely every single pro-AI person I’ve spoken with both irl and online has been clearly struggling cognitively. It’s like 10x worse than the effects of basic social media addiction. People also appear to actively change for the worse if they get conned into adopting it. Brain rot is apparently a symptom of AI use as literally as tooth rot is a symptom of smoking.
Speaking of smoking and vaping, on top of being bad for you objectively, it’s lame and gross. Now that that narrative is firmly established we have actually started seeing youth nicotine use decline rapidly again, just like it was before vaping became a thing
…and then you proceed to spend the next two paragraphs continuing to rant about how mentally deficient you think AI users are.
Not that, for starters.
The lung capacity of smokers is deficient, yes? Is the mere fact offensive? Should we just not talk about how someone struggling to breathe as they walk up stairs is the direct result of their smoking?
This is literally begging the question.
I don’t think it is, nor do I think name dropping random fallacies without engaging with the topic makes for particularly good conversation. If you have issues with OP’s phrasing it would benefit all of us moving forward if we found a better way to talk about it, yes?
It’s not a random fallacy, it’s the one you’re engaging in. Look it up. Your analogy presupposes an answer to the question that is actually at hand. It’s the classic “have you stopped beating your wife” situation.
I am intimately familiar with the fallacy. You don’t know how to apply it. I have presupposed nothing.
You can see very clearly from the structure of my post that the brain rot I am referring to is established via anecdote. It is my direct experience. This is obviously low quality evidence by itself for the establishment of my conclusion as a broader fact, and we could absolutely go down that road and start linking to the actual cognitive decline studies if you wanted
But my ‘argument’ is simply not structured as a begging the question fallacy. I am literally saying that I have personally observed that all AI users I encounter are “wife beaters”, and am proceeding with my analogy from there
“Given that we have identified a group of wife beaters, and you dislike the term ‘wife beater’, how can we better phrase it to improve domestic abuse interventions?” Does not become a begging the question fallacy just because you disagree with the initial classification of who is a wife beater
You wrote:
By using this analogy for the “brain rot” you claim comes from AI use, you are presupposing that it actually happens. You’re putting as much confidence in that as there is in the well-established but completely unrelated effect of smoking on lung capacity.
Ultimately, what this whole exchange boils down to:
How useful.