That went out of window and provably failed even before LLM. The strategy of flooding everything with cheap false claims and arguments while demanding that the opponent spends increasing amount of effort and time was a success even before. It became worst with LLM.
So, no, you are making the claim, first prove it is worth any of that effort.
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.
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?
Yeah, most charitably, it seems to be some sort of an LLM art project. And it's another day when we engage with slop because it happens to say something we like.
As opposed to bills sponsored by real people that completely decimated privacy? Patriot Act?
I’ll take slop that has some semblance of reasonable privacy protection any day.
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.