> One remaining one-star review on Google reads, “Their logo is AI generated, if they can’t make the effort to create a logo they definitely won’t make the effort to cook good food.”

I'm not sure what it's called, but there has to be a name for this logical error.

It’s an example of logical fallacy, specifically a non sequitur. It actually combines a few related errors: non sequitur, hasty generalization, guilt by association, and false cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

The reviewer is essentially saying: “If they cut corners on X, they must cut corners on Y”, which is a common logical error in making judgments based on incomplete information.

On the other hand, the indignation over faulty logic I’ve seen in multiple comments already is somewhat ironic considering the hundreds of times I’ve seen the Van Halen brown M&M story invoked on HN as an example of a brilliantly simple heuristic for predicting quality.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Horn Effect: causes one's perception of another to be unduly influenced by a single negative trait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_effect

Seems valid to me. I won't read articles with model-generated header images, because it's a good indicator the rest of the text will be slop as well.

For a restaurant, a slop logo gives the impression that the owner doesn't care about the details and has no taste.

Beyond that, the use of generative models is a big moral issue for a growing number of people.

The real scarce resource in the world is legitimacy. People seem to strongly associate AI with low legitimacy. Extrapolation from low effort and inattention to details has always existed but AI legitimacy poisoning is a new and bigger phenomenon than just a logical error.

I mean, 'definitely' is strong, but if you're willing to cut corners on the most visible part of your business, there is a good chance you're willing to cut corners on the rest of it.

"Uses generative AI images" is a decent heuristic for "probably crap, best avoided", IME.

> there has to be a name for this logical error

Are you looking for "category confusion"? It's a conflation, but let's look at the logic. (So yes, my prior is that there is logic.)

"If they generated their logo by mumbling things at a toaster / picking something from the vending machine and then 'owning' it, how likely is it that they stole a sandwich in a grubby wrapper from a bum and are going to hand it to me and say 'I made this'?"

Edit: the article is paywalled, but a number of comments remark on the owner's sense of entitlement. So my moot is probably close for throwing blind. So then that might be the real issue, and the logo is a proxy for a perception of lack of work + mental bullying.

AI models are explicitly sold and advertised as a way to reduce labor cost to zero. If you want to reduce your cost to zero in one area (at the expense of other real people) you most likely will seek to drive costs to zero in other areas (at the expense of your customers).

I don't think that's a logical error at all. That is the explicit and overtly stated plan and promise of AI.

It’s not a logical error, just common sense. Eg. how you do one thing is how you do everything.