One very new behavior is the dismissal of someone's writing as the work of AI.
It's sadly become quite common on internet forums to suppose that some post or comment was written by AI. It's probably true in some cases, but people should ask themselves how the cost/benefit to calling it out looks.
Unfortunately it's the correct thing to do. Just like in the past where you shouldn't have believed any stories told on the internet, it's now reasonable to assume any image/text you come across wasn't created by a human, or in the case of images is simply an event that never happened.
The easiest way to protect myself these days is to assume the worst about all content. Why am I replying to a comment in that case? Consider it a case yelling into the void.
1. A bot-generated argument is still an argument. I can't make claims about the truth or falsity based on the enunciator, that's simply ad hominem.
2. A bot-generated image is not a record of photon-emissions in the physical world. When I look at photos, they need to be records of the physical world, or they're a creative work.
I think you can't rationally apply the same standard to these 2 things.
The problem is the bullshit asymmetry and engaging in good faith.
AI users aren’t investing actual work and can generate reams if bullshit that puts three burden on others to untangle. And they also aren’t engaging in good faith.
Some discussions are dialectic, where a group is cooperatively reasoning toward a shared truth. In dialectical discussions, good faith is crucial. AI can't participate in dialectical work. Most public discourse is not dialectical, it is rhetorical. The goal is to persuade the audience, not your interlocutor. You aren't "yelling into the void", you're advocating to the jury.
Rhetoric is the model used in debate. Proponents don't expect to change their Opponent's mind, and vice versa. In fact, if your opponent is obstinate (or a non-sentient text generator), it is easier to demonstrate the strength of your position to the gallery.
People reference Brandolini's "bullshit asymmetry principle" but don't differentiate between dialectical and rhetorical contexts. In a rhetorical context, the strategy is to demonstrate to the audience that your interlocutor is generating text with an indifference to truth. You can then pivot, forcing them to defend their method rather than making you debunk their claims.
If a parrot squawks, "1,345 multiplied by 785 equals 1,055,825", you would be logically and factually incorrect to say 'Well, that's wrong because how would a bird know".
The historical meaning of the word 'hominem' isn't crucial to the universal logical principle of 'ad hominem'. If xenoorganisms beneath the ice-sheets of Titan are dismissing each other's ideas out of hand, they too may be committing this fallacy. The fallacy is the rejection of an argument based on its source rather than its content.
My partner has become tiresome about this - even if I was to tell them that I responded to your comment on HN, they'd go "You probably just responded to a bot".
Are bots really infiltrating HN and making constructive non-inflammatory comments? I don't find it at all plausible but "that's just what they want you to think".
I've seen chatgpt output here as comments for sure. In some cases obvious, in other cases borderline. I wouldn't guess that it's a major fraction of comments, but it's there.
It's sadly become quite common on internet forums to suppose that some post or comment was written by AI. It's probably true in some cases, but people should ask themselves how the cost/benefit to calling it out looks.