This genre of writing is quite hard to engage with productively. It is really long due to throwing everything at the wall. Doesn't matter if the argument is obsolete, a lie, unprovable, or actually a legit and we'll researched complaint. Into the article it goes.

For people who want to believe the author, this flooding the zone approach is catnip. They get the confirmation they need. The people who don't want to believe the author will just dismiss the entire article after the first argument they recognize as invalid.

And for the people in the middle, it's impossible to have a good discussion about the article and get a better understanding because there are too many unrelated arguments packed together. Trying to rebut or support just one of them just feels like a waste of time.

If you're trying to write an effective anti-AI article, it really would be way more effective to pick the 1-2 strongest points (whatever they are).