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.

This seems like a chicken and egg problem.

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?

Let's call it "Ad machinam".

A literal form of "to the machine”: none of the rights that a person has.

Example usage:

“That’s not a rebuttal; it’s an argumentum ad machinam -- you’re rejecting it just because AI wrote it.”

And really when you think about it, all AI is is just the a statical recombination of (almost) everything that (almost) everyone has written.

So it's a kind of mechanical recombination of ideas.

Almost like reject the argument because the logical reasoning was supplied emotionally.

Presumably why the person you are responding to called it a modified ad hominem.

Maybe we need a phrase like ad-machinam to attack LLMs.

Made me coin a term.

Ad hominllm: the dismissal of a work or an argument because an LLM was, or may have been, used in its construction or editing.

Pronounced: ad homin-ellem?