This piece of propaganda is a real knee-slapper.

The article might as well have been called Waah!

The headline alone sounds like it was written by a spoiled brat writhing in soggy underpants:

AI is making everything worse

A whiny SubStacker

But let’s get down to the numerous logical flaws and sophistry in this propagandistic tirade.

“AI Is Making Everything Worse” is not a serious account of a complex technology. It is a propaganda text that converts legitimate, separable concerns into a single contaminating symbol, “AI”, and then asks readers to substitute moral revulsion for analysis.

Yeah, not happening.

The article converts “AI” into an all-purpose villain responsible for harms that have distinct causes:

• Data-centre siting and grid policy are governance and infrastructure questions.
• Layoffs and deskilling are employer and labour-policy choices.
• Copyright disputes concern licensing, consent, compensation, and legal doctrine.
• Deepfake sexual abuse is a criminal, platform-enforcement, and victim-protection problem.
• Biased automated decisions are accountability, audit, and rights problems.

The author’s tactic is to erase these distinctions so that every grievance reinforces the same emotional conclusion: AI itself is a pollutant.

This is classic Us versus Them propaganda, no different than when Nation X paints Nation Y as faceless destructive monsters: the in-group must protect themselves from the out-group or they will be swallowed up.

These days, overt bigotry is frowned upon except in two cases: ideological or political difference, and AI. This is considered “safe” xenophobia, but the manipulative tactics are the same.

And let’s be clear: Data centers can be built underwater, solving the problem; layoffs aren’t happening because of AI but inflation and the price of oil thanks to tariffs and a gratuitous war; lawsuits are common in all industries; AI is not to blame for sexual abuse, but people, who also use the Internet and computers in their criminal enterprises and have done so for years, yet no one is raging to get rid of either of those, and biases decrease when more people from various backgrounds interact with AI so it has more perspectives to draw from.

None of these problems are without solutions. Grow up. How sheltered is this guy?

Phrases such as “turd mountain” and the article’s other degradation imagery are not evidence, but a temper tantrum; they make the reader feel that engagement is contamination. The emotional logic is: if the subject is disgusting, then nuance becomes complicity.

That is a classic propaganda technique: first make the object morally repellent, then make questions about scale, trade-offs, benefits, or alternatives seem naïve or suspect.

I fail to see any empirical evidence backing up this propagandistic piece.

“Everything worse” is deliberately unfalsifiable as written. Any benefit can be reclassified as an exception, hype, or a benefit reserved for elites; any harm anywhere can be entered as proof of the universal rule.

If there are no answers, it is not an analytical claim. It is a faith statement.

The available evidence does not support the article’s universal claim that AI is making “everything worse.”

So let’s provide some evidence here:

Those are not minor improvements to society. Those are serious ways of making life better, not worse.

The melodrama falls flat because we are dealing with an AI illiterate writer whose gambits don’t work on AI literate people.

This piece is just ideological pollution, nothing more.