4 ms·
Article is a motte-and-bailey[0] argument. Bailey (the clickbait): “Generative AI is a con!!” Motte (narrow defendable argument): OpenAI and Anthropic have no
by petesergeant 2y ago
Article is a motte-and-bailey[0] argument.
Bailey (the clickbait): “Generative AI is a con!!”
Motte (narrow defendable argument): OpenAI and Anthropic have not shown that building a proprietary model and selling inference is a sustainable business.
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
- card_zero 2y agoI see, so whenever anybody states their position tersely, I can accuse them of using a motte-and-bailey argument, and force them to be so pedantic and long winded that their point get lost in the weeds. Unless I like what they're saying, of course. I'll keep it in mind!
- lblume 2y agoThese two are completely different statements, though.
- card_zero 2y agoI thought they were fairly similar. I suppose there's the question whether it's a sincere misdirection.
- petesergeant 2y ago…what? The author has a narrow defensible point (OpenAI and Anthropic have questionable business models) and rather than stating it tersely, he’s instead tried to use that to write an unfocused article dismissing all of Generative AI as a con. It feels like you neither read the original article very carefully, nor took the time to understand what a motte-and-bailey argument is before writing this.