Hm. OK, I did as the author asked and tried some of the bigger AIs. They identified 9 different logical fallacies in the article, and concluded that the article in whole uses accurate data but falls almost 100% into bad logic, in an attempt to overwhelm the reader and promote the author's desired viewpoint instead of honest analysis.

I'm not going to re-post the AI slop that told me those conclusions, but I do wonder if the author took their own advice and asked an AI to critique their thinking.

> Yes, there’s a lot of eye-rollable hype.

I wonder if the author is aware of the irony of saying this in an article that is almost pure eye-rollable hype.