> I'm sure there is a name for this logical trick you are trying to use. Your example is an instance of the fallacy of the inverse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

> I'm sure there is a name for this logical trick you are trying to use. Your example is an instance of the fallacy of the inverse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent). But that is not the type of reasoning I was doing. Following your example, you also cannot prove that spaghetti monsters do exist. Since neither side can offer definitive proof of their stance, the only way to settle the debate is to have less stringent requirements than proofs, such as, for example, circumstantial evidence. Nobody has ever seen spaghetti monsters, therefore it seems unlikely that they exist. Not a definitive proof, but it does allow a certain degree of certainty. The point is to reach probabilistic conclusions in light of the available evidence, rather than seeking definitive proofs, which are impossible for most real-world questions. > The burden of proof is on the AI fanfic crowd to prove that terminator and AGI is just around the corner. No, this is an argument from ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Each side of the debate is supposed to provide proof, evidence, or reasons for their perspective, otherwise they do not have much clout, besides prejudice. Since there are plenty of examples of risks and harmful consequences of AI applications (see my other replies in this thread), it is quite reasonable to assume that new AI technologies pose new risks and that we should at least consider what those risks may be. Now the burden is yours to argue that no, despite all these past failures, we're still totally safe.