Re:Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation
by hananova on Monday March 16, 2026 @06:31AM
(#47397236)
Ad-hominem (literally: "to the person") requires a person on the other side of the argument. This wasn't made or written by a person, thus ad-hominem does not apply.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation
by grumpymuppet on Monday March 16, 2026 @07:21AM
(#47397562)
Presumably why the person you are responding to called it a modified ad hominem.
Re:Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation
by samrus on Monday March 16, 2026 @09:08AM
(#47398507)
Thats a bit pedantic. Youre still arguing against an entity rather than addressing the argument.
If you prompted an LLM to make a PSA that people should brush their teeth, is it a fair to argue that brushing your teeth is bad because an LLM made the argument?
Re:Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation
by egberts1 on Monday March 16, 2026 @10:18AM
(#47399399)
Let's call it "Ad machinam".
A literal form of "to the machine”: none of the rights that a person has.
Example usage:
“That’s not a rebuttal; it’s an argumentum ad machinam -- you’re rejecting it just because AI wrote it.”
Re:Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation
by normalaccess on Monday March 16, 2026 @11:48AM
(#47400590)
And really when you think about it, all AI is is just the a statical recombination of (almost) everything that (almost) everyone has written.
So it's a kind of mechanical recombination of ideas.