4 ms·

Is there a name for the logical fallacy that the author presents, that goes like: 1) In the past (some portion of) society was scared about the printing press,

Is there a name for the logical fallacy that the author presents, that goes like: 1) In the past (some portion of) society was scared about the printing press, and it turned out to be fine 2) In the past (some portion of) society was scared about the internet, and it turned out to be fine 3) Therefore, if nowadays (some portion of) people are scared of AI, then they're wrong, AI is safe, because in the past some portion of the population was wrong about other technologies I guess it would be called a non-sequitur? Here's a more contrived example to make the fallacy more clear: 1) In the past (some portion of) people didn't think automobiles could obtain speeds of 50mph and they turned out to be wrong 2) In the past (some portion of) people didn't think automobiles could obtain speeds of 300mph and they turned out to be wrong 3) Therefore, nowadays, my claim that I have an automobile that will drive 10,000 mph must always be right, because in the past (some portion of) people were wrong about automobile progress. I've been seeing lots of examples of this type of fallacy where the giveaway is people pointing out about how people in the past made bad predictions, which somehow means any predictions people are making today are also wrong. It just doesn't follow.

salawat 2y ago
Past performance is not an indicator of future results. It underlies everything in modern society, yet seems to be one of the most oft lost sight of understandings on the planet
janalsncm 2y ago
I’m not sure if there is a specific term, but it’s basically an example of the problem of induction and confirmation bias. The conclusion does not logically follow from its tenants. Basically, no matter how many white swans you’ve seen, you can’t use that information to prove that black swans don’t exist.
hatthew 2y ago
"Weak induction" might be a good way to describe this. "Hasty generalization" if you want a more common logical fallacy to name, though ironically it's a more general fallacy that doesn't perfectly describe the situation you're talking about. Technically all inductive arguments are a non-sequitur, since (non-)sequitur is a deductive concept and inductive arguments are inherently non-deductive.
entrepy123 2y ago
As a cognitive bias: That sounds like the "normalcy" (or normality) bias, "the refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before" [0], [1]. As a logical fallacy: Based on skimming the list at [2], the "appeal to tradition" [3, 4, 5] fallacy seems close: "claim in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis of correlation with past or present tradition". (Aka: appeal to tradition, argumentum ad traditionem, argumentum ad antiquitatem, back in those good times, conservative bias, good old days); or, maybe: argument from inertia, stay the course. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias [2] https://biaslist.com/?q=_lf https://biaslist.com/?q=_lf [3] https://biaslist.com/?q=appeal+to+tradition https://biaslist.com/?q=appeal+to+tradition [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition [5] https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.ht...
mofeien 2y ago
Claude identifies a mix of False Analogy, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to History
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jph00 2y ago
That argument does not appear in the article. The article says that actually the current bill does not cover any models at all, and gives advice on how to change it so it does. It never makes any claim that AI is safe. A lot of people read what they expect to see, rather than the words that are actually there.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  The article claims that AI is a “dual use” general purpose computing technology, and that it can be used for good and evil. To my knowledge, most technology can be used for good and evil depending on who is using it, so the article begs the question of how much of each we can reliably expect.
  - musicale 2y ago
    The magnitude is important as well as the sign.
nobutterbetter 2y ago
[dead]

salawat 2y ago

Past performance is not an indicator of future results. It underlies everything in modern society, yet seems to be one of the most oft lost sight of understandings on the planet

janalsncm 2y ago

I’m not sure if there is a specific term, but it’s basically an example of the problem of induction and confirmation bias. The conclusion does not logically follow from its tenants. Basically, no matter how many white swans you’ve seen, you can’t use that information to prove that black swans don’t exist.

hatthew 2y ago

"Weak induction" might be a good way to describe this. "Hasty generalization" if you want a more common logical fallacy to name, though ironically it's a more general fallacy that doesn't perfectly describe the situation you're talking about. Technically all inductive arguments are a non-sequitur, since (non-)sequitur is a deductive concept and inductive arguments are inherently non-deductive.

entrepy123 2y ago

As a cognitive bias: That sounds like the "normalcy" (or normality) bias, "the refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before" [0], [1]. As a logical fallacy: Based on skimming the list at [2], the "appeal to tradition" [3, 4, 5] fallacy seems close: "claim in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis of correlation with past or present tradition". (Aka: appeal to tradition, argumentum ad traditionem, argumentum ad antiquitatem, back in those good times, conservative bias, good old days); or, maybe: argument from inertia, stay the course. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias [2] https://biaslist.com/?q=_lf https://biaslist.com/?q=_lf [3] https://biaslist.com/?q=appeal+to+tradition https://biaslist.com/?q=appeal+to+tradition [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition [5] https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.ht...

mofeien 2y ago

Claude identifies a mix of False Analogy, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to History

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jph00 2y ago

That argument does not appear in the article. The article says that actually the current bill does not cover any models at all, and gives advice on how to change it so it does. It never makes any claim that AI is safe. A lot of people read what they expect to see, rather than the words that are actually there.

janalsncm 2y ago
The article claims that AI is a “dual use” general purpose computing technology, and that it can be used for good and evil. To my knowledge, most technology can be used for good and evil depending on who is using it, so the article begs the question of how much of each we can reliably expect.
- musicale 2y ago
  The magnitude is important as well as the sign.

nobutterbetter 2y ago

[dead]