I am going to assume that you're still speaking in good faith for now.
>Backill reasoning? Providing reasoning later is less legitimate? Why?
I think you might miss interpret the phrasing. To backfill reasoning means you reached your conclusion prior to reasoning about it, then attempt justification afterwards.
This is indeed significantly less legitimate.
>Some people state things without spelling out the reasoning because they assume it is common sense.
"Common sense isn't common" aka incredulous fallacy. It's up to you to clarify yourself. Not to expect others understand you immediately.
>Your opinions are fact.
They factually exist, but they are mutually exclusive from the definition of being a fact.
Opinions are not facts themselves.
>Your comments here are textbook arbitrariness.
Ok, let's look at a definition
>Arbitrary describes actions, decisions, or rules based on random choice, personal whim, or impulse rather than reason, system, or law.
Not sure how you could call a statement pointing out an issue with the authors position as claimed as not following any reason, or being based on whim. The reasoning was provided and referred to a specific system (synthetic vs non synthetic). Very much out of the bounds of a book definition of arbitrary.
I noticed you did not seem to provide a definition.
>To dig a little into it: it is generated content,
That's what I said...
>but that’s not necessarily what their arguments hinge on at all.
Based on what?
The author put multiple no-AI badges on the page. Infer what you wish, but it's clear the context given the broader palle of information avaible to anyone. The author drew an arbitrary line around the context to grant themselves the use of certain tools while avoiding a blow to their morals for the use of others.
They built up a dirt hill so they can feel like they are taller.
Don't support such delusions.