>>17027580
No, its still appeal to authority. And not all AI are equal, just like you are me arent equal

>>17027588
>everyone else's chatbot is full of shit but mine only dispenses Facts and Logic
lol

>>17027607
Try asking an AI what that post actually said instead of embarrassing yourself further.

>>17027614
I asked Claude and he told me you sound like you put gerbils up your pooper.

>>17027580
A formal fallacy fedepends in the structure of the argument independent of what words were actually said. So "appeal to AI" must be an informal fallacy.
And yes, as the other anon said, this would be a type of appeal to authority.

And this >>17027607 happens to be a strawman.

>>17027580
That response is obviously false, the real Gemini would call you a generational genius before agreeing with you.

formal fallacies almost never exist. philosophers have abandoned these decades ago (without ever issuing a formal apology for ruining discourse forever via sophist fags).
https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-time-to-get.html
>In our paper, we develop a destructive dilemma for fallacy theorists which we call the Fallacy Fork. In this dilemma, fallacy theorists are forced to choose between two options, neither of which is appealing. Take any fallacy from the list. Now we have two options:
>We characterize our fallacy by means of a deductive argumentation schema. For instance, in the case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, we use the following definition: “If B follows A, then A is the cause of B”. For a deductive argument to be valid, the conclusion needs to follow inexorably from the premises. In this case, that is clearly not true. By the standards of deductive logic, any argument instantiating that schema is fallacious. Now the good thing about this approach is that it has normative force. There’s no negotiating with deductive logic. The problem, however, is that we hardly ever find such clear-cut errors, presented in deductive form, in real life (see further). This is the first prong of the Fallacy Fork.
>We characterize our fallacy in a way that captures real-life arguments. In order to do so, we need to abandon our strict deductive approach. We need to relax our definitions and add some qualifiers and nuances. For post hoc ergo propter hoc, this might go as follows: “If B follows shortly after A, and we can think of a plausible causal mechanism linking A and B, then A is probably the cause of B.” This definition is a bit more cumbersome, but it is much closer to the kind of arguments people make in real life. By casting our net wider, we catch many more fish. But now we have another problem on our hands: is our argument still fallacious? In other words, is every instantiation of the scheme wrong?