[fdupress]

This author disagrees with this take. They are setting a scene here, and explicitly saying that the Block story wasn't about AI at all a few paragraphs later.

If that "bait" caused you to stop reading despite the fact that you probably agree with the author's sentiment, it's not very good bait.

[JohnMakin]

I agree with none of this. It's clickbait slop, very obviously, and that did make me skim it faster than I normally would have, but I read it. The burden shouldn't be on me to try to understand the point clickbait slop is making. This "style" is unreadable and exhausting and that was my salient point. Read what I just linked, it makes the complete opposite conclusion just a few months ago.

How good, non-slop writing usually works is - you lead with your main point, and break it down further throughout the main article. The fact he contradicts his leading hook indicates slop and bad writing, not failure for me to understand whatever the hell the point of this nonsense is (other than to get clicks).

[shimman]

I agree; it's poor writing that leads to poor arguments. If readers discard your argument, then you weren't making a good argument.