> delegitimize developer criticism before addressing its substance. This attacks the critics rather than engaging with their actual concerns
It’s a petition, not a debate. Who is speaking is absolutely relevant. Tens of thousands of tiny developers with a few million collective users aren’t relevant to Google.
> Appeal to Corporate Omniscience
This is not a logical fallacy. You may be thinking of appeal to improper authority. But in that case the criticism is that we don’t know Google anticipated this. Not what you wrote, which is technically ad hominem, since you conclude adversely based on Google being a corporation.
> ignores the possibility that feedback could be legitimate even if anticipated
No, it does not. It says such a petition brings no new information to the decision makers at Google. If Google (note: this is OP’s hypothesis, not a fact) anticipated small developers complaining. Small developers are complaining. That doesn’t make the complaints wrong. But it would make them practically irrelevant.
I did not mention the petition. I am merely offering feedback on the grandparent's argument about Google's policy (which itself also does not mention the petition).
It is absolutely a debate. Why are you here if not to debate?
> Appeal to Corporate Omniscience - The argument assumes that because Google anticipated negative feedback, this somehow validates their decision or renders criticism invalid. A company expecting pushback doesn't automatically make their decision correct.
This argument is not present nor implied in my comment.
> Circular Reasoning - The logic is essentially: "Google knew people would complain, therefore the complaints don't matter because Google expected them." This doesn't address whether the complaints have merit.
My text did not comment or expressed any opinion whether the complaints have merit.
> False Dichotomy - It implies that developer feedback is either completely valid (and Google should have changed course) or completely invalid (because Google was "prepared" for it). This ignores the possibility that feedback could be legitimate even if anticipated.
My comment does not present this dichotomy as described by you.
The easy thing to do is ignore an AI slop comment like that, because someone apparently couldn’t think for themselves and had to shove it into an arrogant little machine to come up with a response.
Not really. You should have learned by now that jumping into a conversation on the internet with the wikipedia "list of logical fallacies" page open on the other half of the screen and then vaguely ascribing aspects of a comment to a cherry-picked list of fallacies basically only ever results in people making fun of you.
I don't even think that would fly on reddit. People have been making fun of that style of response since IRC. If anybody is bad at anything, it's you at understanding how to have a productive conversation on an internet forum.
> ... only ever results in people making fun of you.
Why would I care about people making fun of me or IRC/Reddit etiquette or whatever? What kind of an argument is that? I thought on HN we seek the truth about the topic, not social approval right? Maybe you are projecting your own insecurities about discussing things online?
I firmly believe I added helpful indications that the arguments could be fallacious. It is up to the readers of the thread to keep my indications in consideration or not. I would advise you to focus on _other_ arguments, instead of the potentially fallacious and baseless argument.
I really don't understand the issues with using. You're all okay with using Cursor and Lovable to aid and speed up coding tasks right? Seems like such a weird double standard to me. More interestingly it seems to come from an emotional place, not a place of logic.
it's really sad that just pointing out logical mistakes in someone's post gets you attacked, and ppl even accuse you of using AI like it's changing anything. we seriously need a proper public campaign to teach folks how to actually have real discussions again and to spot weak or irrelevant arguments
> sad that just pointing out logical mistakes in someone's post gets you attacked
They didn’t. They mis-applied fallacies and in one case made one up. There was no substantial good-faith response to OP’s argument. Instead we got a shallow dismissal masked in the language (but not substance) of logic.
It was fun to engage with! But not meaningful. The online-commenting equivalent of scrolling short-form videos and getting enraged or delighted or awe-struck for a picosecond.
> Can you elaborate how the other fallacies were mis-applied
Sure. OP didn’t ever reject the developers’ arguments. He’s criticising their methods for activism. But, even if OP were attacking their arguments:
OP doesn’t reject the developers’ methods (remember, their arguments are never contested) because of who is speaking, but how. To the extent it could be mistaken for ad hominem, it would be in tone policing, but that’s not what you said and it is not true because OP was citing Apple’s language, as evidenced by the quotes.
Appeal to corporate omniscience is not a fallacy. (And OP doesn’t cite Google as evidence for their arguments, so no appeal to authority.)
Circular reasoning doesn’t apply, even to your example, because complaints not mattering doesn’t cause Google to expect them.
False dichotomy does not apply because OP never argued any dichotomy. The closest they came was hyperbolic language (“perfectly” and “completely and fully”). But that’s closer to modal scope than any dichotomy, possibly fallacy of necessity since it implies future limits.
Arguments rarely require citing the formal or informal fallacy invoked. Instead, just respond to the argument. This is a great case of AI corrupting a discussion through derailment and false confidence.
> Arguments rarely require citing the formal or informal fallacy invoked.
I disagree. If I suspect a fallacy I will cite it in your face.
I also disagree with your analysis of the fallacies that the AI identified. I do not care to continue or have time to elaborate much though. Sorry, I just wanted to let you know I strongly disagree with how you are all hurt by perfectly fine AI-generated arguments.
Btw can you all please tell me just one more time that the "appeal to corporate omniscience" isn't in the Wikipedia list of fallacies (which is just as arbitrary a source as a good LLM)? Tomato tomato, arguing semantics is soooo boring
> If I suspect a fallacy I will cite it in your face
And my cat will yell before his dinner time. We all have useless impulses. The question is if it accomplishes anything.
Also, you didn’t suspect anything. A language model thought for you. Your role was in copying and pasting. Not understanding or commanding.
> disagree with your analysis of the fallacies that the AI identified
Sure.
For what it’s worth, I ran your comment—over drinks—past a professor of
philosophy who has published peer-reviewed research out of Columbia. He said I was too gentle. It’s gibberish of a form that wouldn’t make it past undergrad formal logic.
We have no doubt you and plenty of others will regurgitate AI tripe with confidence. (This happened with television and organised religion in the past.) And I’ll admit I haven’t found, yet, how to profit off that common temptation other than investing in the companies that facilitate it. But I think I will, because folks who will double down on hallucinated constructs are commonplace.
> can you all please tell me just one more time that the "appeal to corporate omniscience" isn't in the Wikipedia list of fallacies
It’s in no philosophy text, either. Because it is, in itself, an appeal to authority. (Incorporation isn’t a logical primitive. It is a social construct.)
> which is just as arbitrary a source as a good LLM
To the extent a peer-reviewed paper is the same as a grad student, sure.
(There is also rich irony in a corporate LLM hallucinating a fallacy about corporate omniscience. The stupid part, here, is the doubling down.)
Unrelated: none of the "AI detectors" work. It is impossible to discern human text from AI. Although sometimes we might believe we can feel it, it is still false.
The above post listing fallacies is entirely AI-generated and is likely a sleeper agent account that has been woken up from a pattern of posting non-content to disguise inactivity to start astroturfing for Google.
> likely a sleeper agent account that has been woken up from a pattern of posting non-content to disguise inactivity to start astroturfing for Google
“Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.”
