Sorry, I’ll try it with crayons:

While I don’t disagree with the overall message of the article (I agree that there are a lot of reasons that AI is bad), the article itself is of poor quality (in my humble opinion), which might save someone else from wasting the 30 seconds it will take to read it. As another commentor pointed out, it seems likely that this article — arguing that AI is bad — was indeed, somewhat paradoxically, itself written by AI.

In an attempt to be helpful, I will, however, share a link to the article, which will allow others to avoid the paywall, and thus form their own opinion on the matter, seeing as the original link does not allow anyone to actually read the article in question, due to said paywall.

I’m sorry that my comment annoyed you enough to warrant the scathing review and analysis; I do, however, feel that it might be based on a somewhat flawed interpretation of what I actually wrote, possibly due to an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex (conceivably age related), or poor education, or both, combined with low impulse control (conceivably age- and/or diagnosis related).

Either way, I hope you have a great day, and good luck with life.

Comment was about as shallow as the article, so only fitting. It just listed same talkikg points, that are common in AI critique, didn’t even present those particularly well, didn’t bring anything new to the convo.

I would had been all in on reading actually decent in depth AI critique.

But this was just “top 10 talking points for AI haters we can hate together”. I’m a AI hater but I don’t want to read low quality junk media that just confirms my bias without nuance.