8 ms·

Is there a specific term for the phenomena where people arguing online substitute "I disagree with your opinion" with "Your opinion is proof that you are severe

Is there a specific term for the phenomena where people arguing online substitute "I disagree with your opinion" with "Your opinion is proof that you are severely mentally ill", "Your opinion is similar to fiction, which means you have the brain of a child", or "Your opinion is proof that you are a paid foreign agent"? I know it's just generally part of being an anonymous online asshole who doesn't care about what's true or having values, only dunking on someone using some easily accessible thought terminating cliche, but surely there's a specific term for this.

aeonik 3y ago
I think it's a specific kind of Ad Hominim. It's not even a great Ad Hominim because folks like John Nash who did have mental illness were really gifted in other areas. I was about to post a study that even showed that mental illness is linked with mental disorders, but looks like this recent study is pushing back on that idea. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9879926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9879926/
- solardev 3y ago
  > even showed that mental illness is linked with mental disorders Huh? Is there a typo in there, or are disorders and illnesses different in some big way?
  - aeonik 3y ago
    Yes thanks for pointing it out. Mental illness, I thought, was correlated with higher intelligence. Especially depression, though there is also the legend of the mad genius. When I looked up studies to reference this it looks like the landscape here has changed.
gumballindie 3y ago
Sorry, but what else can cause people to fear software and think it’s intelligent and can destroy the world? It most certainly isnt something real. We can pretend it is, but it’s affecting people’s lives. They are constantly bombarded with this nonsense.
- johngladtj 3y ago
  Do you genuinely not recognize the possibility that software can, even unintentionally, cause significant harm to both individuals and large groups of people? Do I need to list out cases where that has already happen?
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    There’s a huge gap between unintentional software errors and software choosing to do harm by its own “desire”. The crowd seeks to think ai will “do” the latter. And that’s an issue. Also it seems like there’s a pattern of redefining the meaning of words to accommodate that imaginary world. All this sounds like a copy cat of 90’s scares about computer virii and ai (yes, this not the first ai is “taking over the world”). Amusing people used to come out on tv to tell us how virii will take over nuclear plants and ai will make those virii.
jollyllama 3y ago
Broadly, it's psychologizing. More interestingly, look into "The Therapeutic State" for when this scales up.
vivekd 3y ago
That phenomenon you speak of is real but I think the parents' comment is valid in this case. Being afraid of a large language model running statistics does look a lot like childishness or mental illness. I can give the general public a pass because maybe they don't know the tech and are going off media hype. But for someone to know what this is and be afraid of it does look silly doesn't it?
- slenocchio 3y ago
  Listen to Eliezer Yudkowsky's arguments. Perhaps it looks silly to you but there are actually _extremely_ good reasons to be worried about AI progress without figuring out alignment first. What would happen if we gave humanity the internet before we had cryptography? On a side note, it's troubling how many hyper intelligent and successful people in tech are happy to denigrate the opposition in bad faith.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    > internet before we had cryptography? I’m sorry what? The internet has been clear text for the most part.
    - slenocchio 3y ago
      We can communicate securely on the internet because of cryptography (HTTPS vs. HTTP). If cryptography didn't exist any signal you ever sent over the internet could be observed and used maliciously against you (payment info, passwords, etcetera).
      - argiopetech 3y ago
        The WWW (1989) ran for 5 years before SSL 1.0 (1994). If cryptography were never invented, we would use the internet like we used analog telephones (i.e., under the assumption our communication could be easily intercepted) and not pass privileged information over it. Otherwise, I imagine it would be a non-issue. Given changing laws on cryptography (i.e., state-required backdoors & etc.), we may be back in that mindset before too long.
mypastself 3y ago
I used to think you could be a 9/11 truther and still hold reasonable beliefs otherwise. I thought a lot of these people genuinely looked at the official story and related evidence with an open mind, and came to a different conclusion than I did. But the more of them I’ve met, the more I’ve found they tend to be everything-else truthers as well: moon landing, vaccines, etc., and I tend to disregard their arguments outright. Is that fair? Maybe not. But it’s borne out of years of similar interactions, and it’s saved me a lot of time and effort. Lately I’ve started acting similarly with doomers, almost inadvertently. If you think that e.g. climate change will make humanity go extinct in the next few decades, it’s likely you feel similarly about A.I., COVID, etc. I’m starting to shut out such claims immediately, or at least engage with them less. There seem to be certain personality types who gravitate towards certain types of beliefs. I’m not qualified to speculate as to why they do, but sometimes simply ignoring them can be… sensible.
- solardev 3y ago
  It saddens me how right you are. Things have become so polarized and tribal that there isn't much room for nuance. Can't climate change be a big deal without being an extinction risk? Covid was deadly, but mostly to certain demographics. AI is dangerous in the way that the Manhattan Project was dangerous, but maybe that's not sufficient reason to stop pursuing it. Etc. But I think people are so overwhelmed by this hyperconnected and ubersensationalized world, flooded with ethical conundrums daily, that they only have the bandwidth for snap judgments. Into this bucket or the other you go, thought, no time or energy for a closer examination!

aeonik 3y ago

I think it's a specific kind of Ad Hominim. It's not even a great Ad Hominim because folks like John Nash who did have mental illness were really gifted in other areas. I was about to post a study that even showed that mental illness is linked with mental disorders, but looks like this recent study is pushing back on that idea. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9879926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9879926/

solardev 3y ago
> even showed that mental illness is linked with mental disorders Huh? Is there a typo in there, or are disorders and illnesses different in some big way?
- aeonik 3y ago
  Yes thanks for pointing it out. Mental illness, I thought, was correlated with higher intelligence. Especially depression, though there is also the legend of the mad genius. When I looked up studies to reference this it looks like the landscape here has changed.

gumballindie 3y ago

Sorry, but what else can cause people to fear software and think it’s intelligent and can destroy the world? It most certainly isnt something real. We can pretend it is, but it’s affecting people’s lives. They are constantly bombarded with this nonsense.

johngladtj 3y ago
Do you genuinely not recognize the possibility that software can, even unintentionally, cause significant harm to both individuals and large groups of people? Do I need to list out cases where that has already happen?
- gumballindie 3y ago
  There’s a huge gap between unintentional software errors and software choosing to do harm by its own “desire”. The crowd seeks to think ai will “do” the latter. And that’s an issue. Also it seems like there’s a pattern of redefining the meaning of words to accommodate that imaginary world. All this sounds like a copy cat of 90’s scares about computer virii and ai (yes, this not the first ai is “taking over the world”). Amusing people used to come out on tv to tell us how virii will take over nuclear plants and ai will make those virii.

jollyllama 3y ago

Broadly, it's psychologizing. More interestingly, look into "The Therapeutic State" for when this scales up.

vivekd 3y ago

That phenomenon you speak of is real but I think the parents' comment is valid in this case. Being afraid of a large language model running statistics does look a lot like childishness or mental illness. I can give the general public a pass because maybe they don't know the tech and are going off media hype. But for someone to know what this is and be afraid of it does look silly doesn't it?

slenocchio 3y ago
Listen to Eliezer Yudkowsky's arguments. Perhaps it looks silly to you but there are actually _extremely_ good reasons to be worried about AI progress without figuring out alignment first. What would happen if we gave humanity the internet before we had cryptography? On a side note, it's troubling how many hyper intelligent and successful people in tech are happy to denigrate the opposition in bad faith.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  > internet before we had cryptography? I’m sorry what? The internet has been clear text for the most part.
  - slenocchio 3y ago
    We can communicate securely on the internet because of cryptography (HTTPS vs. HTTP). If cryptography didn't exist any signal you ever sent over the internet could be observed and used maliciously against you (payment info, passwords, etcetera).
    - argiopetech 3y ago
      The WWW (1989) ran for 5 years before SSL 1.0 (1994). If cryptography were never invented, we would use the internet like we used analog telephones (i.e., under the assumption our communication could be easily intercepted) and not pass privileged information over it. Otherwise, I imagine it would be a non-issue. Given changing laws on cryptography (i.e., state-required backdoors & etc.), we may be back in that mindset before too long.

mypastself 3y ago

I used to think you could be a 9/11 truther and still hold reasonable beliefs otherwise. I thought a lot of these people genuinely looked at the official story and related evidence with an open mind, and came to a different conclusion than I did. But the more of them I’ve met, the more I’ve found they tend to be everything-else truthers as well: moon landing, vaccines, etc., and I tend to disregard their arguments outright. Is that fair? Maybe not. But it’s borne out of years of similar interactions, and it’s saved me a lot of time and effort. Lately I’ve started acting similarly with doomers, almost inadvertently. If you think that e.g. climate change will make humanity go extinct in the next few decades, it’s likely you feel similarly about A.I., COVID, etc. I’m starting to shut out such claims immediately, or at least engage with them less. There seem to be certain personality types who gravitate towards certain types of beliefs. I’m not qualified to speculate as to why they do, but sometimes simply ignoring them can be… sensible.

solardev 3y ago
It saddens me how right you are. Things have become so polarized and tribal that there isn't much room for nuance. Can't climate change be a big deal without being an extinction risk? Covid was deadly, but mostly to certain demographics. AI is dangerous in the way that the Manhattan Project was dangerous, but maybe that's not sufficient reason to stop pursuing it. Etc. But I think people are so overwhelmed by this hyperconnected and ubersensationalized world, flooded with ethical conundrums daily, that they only have the bandwidth for snap judgments. Into this bucket or the other you go, thought, no time or energy for a closer examination!