AI in PbP

The Central Flaw: Equivocation Fallacy

The most significant fault in Jomsviking's argument is the fallacy of equivocation, as philosophy professor Drgwen correctly identifies. He uses the single term "AI" to describe two fundamentally different things:

Narrow AI as a Tool: This includes specific algorithms and hardware used for tasks like sound mastering, audio effects, or digital editing. These tools have indeed been used in media production for decades. They are assistants that execute a pre-programmed function.

Modern Generative AI: This refers to large-scale models (like LLMs or image generators) that learn from vast datasets and can generate entirely new content that simulates human creativity. This technology is recent and is the actual source of the current debate and anxiety.

By conflating these two, Jomsviking creates a faulty argument: "You've accepted Tool AI for 30 years, therefore you must accept Generative AI now." This is like arguing that because you accept using a calculator for math homework, you must also accept a machine that does the entire assignment for you, including writing the explanations. They are not the same thing.

Rhetorical Fallacies and Flawed Logic

Beyond equivocation, Jomsviking's rhetoric employs other fallacies to push his point.

False Dichotomy and Straw Man

Jomsviking presents a false dichotomy: either you are an "early adopter" who embraces the future, or you are a "fool" who will be left behind. This black-and-white framing ignores the vast middle ground where the real conversation is happening—discussing ethics, regulation, artistic integrity, and the appropriate use of these new technologies.

He argues against a straw man—a caricature of his opponents. He implies that people who are hesitant about AI are rejecting all forms of digital assistance in art. In reality, as Drgwen points out, the concern is not about mastering plugins; it's about AI that "supplants human critical thinking and creativity at broad, societal levels." Jomsviking ignores this nuanced position and argues against a much weaker one.

Appeal to Inevitability

His rhetoric is heavy with an appeal to inevitability. Phrases like "This is the future," "The genie cannot be put back in the bottle," and "Adaptation is evolution" are used to shut down debate. This tactic suggests that because the technology's arrival is unstoppable, any critical discussion of its downsides or how it should be managed is pointless. It's a way to avoid engaging with the substance of the criticisms.

Hasty Generalization

He generalizes his own specific, controlled use of AI as an "amanuensis" (a scribe) to the entire field. Just because he uses AI as a tool to augment his own composition doesn't mean that's how everyone will use it, nor does it address the problems that arise when AI is used to replace human creativity entirely.