> It's by far the most popular and fastest growing technology in the world. So presumably people have a general favorable impression of the technology as they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it.

This in itself is not an argument. British Opium was selling like hotcakes in China, so surely people people must have had a general favorable impression if they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it?

▲

bko an hour ago | parent [-]

Here's the difference if it's not obvious:

Opium is a dangerous drug that harms its user. AI is a useful tool that helps people be more productive or explore their interests.

▲

vrganj an hour ago | parent [-]

That is actually a commonality.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12255134/

Either way though, we've disproven the neat rhetorical trick of conflating usage numbers and popular perception.

▲

bko an hour ago | parent [-]

Step one: find two things that differ in nearly every relevant respect.

Step two: identify the broad category they share.

Step three: ask, “If you accept one, why don’t you accept the other?”

	▲	vrganj an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Thank you for sharing your modus operandi with us. Now, what does that have to do with pointing out your ad populum fallacy though?