The easiest way to protect myself these days is to assume the worst about all content. Why am I replying to a comment in that case? Consider it a case yelling into the void.
2. A bot-generated image is not a record of photon-emissions in the physical world. When I look at photos, they need to be records of the physical world, or they're a creative work.
I think you can't rationally apply the same standard to these 2 things.
AI users aren’t investing actual work and can generate reams if bullshit that puts three burden on others to untangle. And they also aren’t engaging in good faith.
Rhetoric is the model used in debate. Proponents don't expect to change their Opponent's mind, and vice versa. In fact, if your opponent is obstinate (or a non-sentient text generator), it is easier to demonstrate the strength of your position to the gallery.
People reference Brandolini's "bullshit asymmetry principle" but don't differentiate between dialectical and rhetorical contexts. In a rhetorical context, the strategy is to demonstrate to the audience that your interlocutor is generating text with an indifference to truth. You can then pivot, forcing them to defend their method rather than making you debunk their claims.
In classical forums arguments are often some form of stamina contest and bots will always win those.
But ye it is like a troll accusation.
The historical meaning of the word 'hominem' isn't crucial to the universal logical principle of 'ad hominem'. If xenoorganisms beneath the ice-sheets of Titan are dismissing each other's ideas out of hand, they too may be committing this fallacy. The fallacy is the rejection of an argument based on its source rather than its content.