AI helped us with something. Maybe he fixed something in our house or helped us move stuff. But then he broke something and we had to replace it. It cost us more money to replace it than what we paid him for helping us, so now we owe him more money than he originally did for us. Read from source...

There was widespread criticism and negative feedback for AI's recent article. Critics argued that the article was riddled with inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and biases. The article's emotional tone was also seen as a sign of irrationality and lack of professionalism.

Some of the most common criticisms included:

1. Inconsistency: Critics pointed out that the author often contradicted himself within the same paragraph or sentence. This created confusion and made it difficult for readers to understand the author's point of view.

2. Biases: Many readers noted that the author seemed to have a clear bias towards certain ideas or opinions. This made it difficult to trust the objectivity of the article.

3. Emotional language: Critics were also frustrated with the author's use of emotional language and rhetorical questions. They felt that this made the article seem more like a personal rant than a serious discussion of the topic at hand.

4. Lack of evidence: Some readers were also disappointed by the author's lack of evidence to support their claims. Without evidence, it was hard for readers to take the author's arguments seriously.

Overall, it seems that AI's recent article was not well-received by readers. The combination of inconsistency, biases, emotional language, and lack of evidence made it difficult for readers to trust the author's arguments or take the article seriously.