• Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    4 months ago

    Technobabble detectors reading very high. This article is meaningless.

    • Lugh@futurology.todayOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Technobabble detectors reading very high

      Interesting response. Do you have some particular physics qualification that gives you confidence to say this in response to the Physics Professor at Tne Leibniz Institute of Photonic Technology who is making these claims?

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        4 months ago

        Whew, straight in with the authority fallacy! How long did you defend your belief in Santa Claus?

        • fr0g@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes, the idiotic fallacy of giving greater weight to the opinion of an authority at the subject being discussed. It is no match to the logical chad move of giving weight to the opinion of a random internet commentator who claims something is nonsense without giving any reason or explanation why.

          • Mango@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            While it’s fair to point out I have no reasons myself, you got the fallacy wrong. You didn’t just give greater weight to their position. You hinged your entire position on theirs. You’re defending something you don’t even understand yourself.

            • Lmaydev@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Just because an argument uses a fallacy doesn’t make its conclusion incorrect. Otherwise known as the fallacy fallacy.

              The person they are referring to most certainly has better knowledge on the subject than you.

              • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                It’s still fair to critics someone’s fallacious argument, though, even if their conclusion happens to be correct. If I say “The sky is blue because it’s actually a big sapphire, my neighbour Bob told me so” it’s clearly a bad argument, even if the conclusion - that the sky is blue - is correct.

            • fr0g@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              You hinged your entire position on theirs.

              I did what? That was my first post in this entire thread.

        • Gaia [She/Her]@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s not a fallacy to appeal to an independent intellectual authority. Do you disregard all research papers because they’re tainted by authority? Photonic computing is very real, and an ignorance of it doesn’t make you an expert on the validity of a claim. Perhaps you could try reading more to correct this issue. How long have you worn that fedora without washing it?

    • Endward23@futurology.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Check it out here: https://www.uni-jena.de/en/all-news/neural-networks-made-of-light

      And there is a reference at the end:

      B. Fischer, M. Chemnitz, Y. Zhu, N. Perron, P. Roztocki, B. MacLellan, L. Di Lauro, A. Aadhi, C. Rimoldi, T. H. Falk, R. Morandotti: Neuromorphic Computing via Fission-based Broadband Frequency Generation. Adv. Sci. 2023, 10, 2303835. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202303835

      This magazine has a good impact factor as far as a quick search shows.

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Well that’s dramatically better than techradar. It’s hard to believe human beings living regular lives are doing this kind of thing. How did we get here?