It's ironic that the top reply to a comment about quality of discourse on this site is an ad hominem. Most people here take AI progress very seriously judging by the number of posts on the front page about AI at any given time. And I think some engineers even explicitly want to commodify their "status-defining skill":
back
2 comments
>It's ironic that the top reply to a comment about quality of discourse on this site is an ad hominem.
You might find the Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy page interesting:
"Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html
So for example, if I said: "The arguments for constructing an AI pause button are bad because they are being made by AI company employees", this would be a fallacious argument.
If I said: "HN users have this weird mental block where they fail to take AI progress seriously", that's not necessarily a fallacious argument, unless it's for the purpose of undermining an argument the HN user made.
> Most people here take AI progress very seriously
You have only an extremely weak basis for this claim and have essentially just made it up.
> judging by the number of posts on the front page
Posts reaching the front page is not a reliable way to measure what "most people here" believe.
> It's ironic that
It's not irony.