News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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.
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.

Re:Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation by egberts1 on Monday March 16, 2026 @03:51PM (#47403935)
Almost like reject the argument because the logical reasoning was supplied emotionally.
Re:Federal Right to Privacy Act – Draft legislation by tmaly on Monday March 16, 2026 @10:28AM (#47399522)
Maybe we need a phrase like ad-machinam to attack LLMs.