3/16/2026 at 5:06:19 AM
What percentage of this is lawslop?https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/tree/main/tests
There’s clearly a non-trivial level of LLM involvement.
I want to say 100% lawslop. I can’t figure out who’s behind this to ascertain their qualifications and acumen in the space.
100% seems like a safe place to start speculating from but I can be talked down.
by tolerance
3/16/2026 at 10:28:16 AM
I think this kind of argument is a modified version of an ad-hominem attack.When you disagree with an argument, you are supposed to address the argument itself, not the thing making the argument.
by ddtaylor
3/16/2026 at 10:31:54 AM
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.by hananova
3/16/2026 at 1:08:06 PM
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?
by samrus
3/16/2026 at 2:18:16 PM
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.”
by egberts1
3/16/2026 at 3:48:49 PM
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.
by normalaccess
3/16/2026 at 7:51:23 PM
Almost like reject the argument because the logical reasoning was supplied emotionally.by egberts1
3/16/2026 at 11:21:25 AM
Presumably why the person you are responding to called it a modified ad hominem.by grumpymuppet