 |
The main fallacy here is a false equivalence (or more specifically, a faulty comparison). |
🚫 Logical Fallacy Spotlight: False Equivalence in AI Criticism
In this post, we break down a popular but flawed argument about OpenAI's GPT-5. We’ll see why it falls into the false equivalence trap and also uses a straw man.
📢 The Claim
“OpenAI claims GPT-5 is the breakthrough. But if I can’t just ask ChatGPT for a step-by-step guide to build it myself — including what CPUs/GPUs to rent, what training data to use, and the algorithms — then it can’t be worth what they say they invested.”
🌳 Logic Tree Breakdown
Claim:
OpenAI says GPT-5 is "the breakthrough."
Argument Presented:
1. If GPT-5 is really worth what OpenAI says...
2. Then any user should be able to:
a) Ask ChatGPT for exact build steps
b) Rent CPUs and GPUs
c) Gather training data
d) Reproduce GPT-5
3. I cannot do this → GPT-5 isn't worth the claimed investment.
Logical Fallacies:
├─ False Equivalence
│ • Compares OpenAI's massive resources with a single user's query ability
│ • Ignores resource, expertise, and data gaps
└─ Straw Man
• Misrepresents OpenAI’s claim
• Attacks an exaggerated, irrelevant version
🔍 Why This Reasoning Fails
- Resource Disparity: GPT-5 required thousands of GPUs running for months, costing millions.
- Proprietary Knowledge: Much of the training process, data, and architecture is not public.
- Skill Gap: Building a frontier AI isn’t like following a recipe — it demands expert teams and years of research.
✅ Takeaway: A user’s inability to replicate GPT-5 from a chat query says nothing about its actual value or the cost of building it.
