Alright, imagine you have a big box of LEGO blocks. You've been spending a lot of time and special parts to build a really fancy, big car (like a robotaxi) in the hope that soon everyone will want these cool cars.

Now, your friend comes along and says, "Hey, I think it's harder than we thought to make everyone want those fancy LEGO cars. Instead, let's use our special parts to build smaller, simpler, but still very cool cars (like personal autonomous vehicles) that lots of people can enjoy right now."

So, you decide to stop working on the big fancy car for now and start making the smaller ones because your friend has a good point - it's hard to build something no one wants yet.

In this story:

- The "special parts" are like the money GM was using.
- The "big fancy LEGO car" is the robotaxi they were trying to make.
- The "smaller cool cars" are the personal autonomous vehicles (like Super Cruise) that GM will work on instead. Read from source...

Based on the provided text, here are some aspects of the article that could be critiqued for inconsistencies, biases, irrational arguments, or emotional behavior:

1. **Bias - Pro-GM, Anti-Kyle Vogt:**
The article seems to favor GM's decision to shift focus from robotaxis to personal autonomous vehicles (AVs). It quotes analysts who support this move, but it doesn't include a substantial counterargument from Kyle Vogt, the former CEO of Cruise. Vogt's critical tweet is mentioned, but his arguments are not explored in detail or balanced against the views of GM and other analysts.

2. **Inconsistency - Elon Musk's Quotation:**
Elon Musk is quoted discussing the difficulty of achieving a general solution to autonomy without making cars expensive. However, this quote seems inconsistent with Tesla's own approach to full self-driving (FSD) technology, which is an add-on feature that costs $20k for life or $199/month in the U.S., aiming to make advanced autonomous driving capabilities cheaper than other options.

3. **Rational vs Emotional Arguments - Kyle Vogt's Tweet:**
While Kyle Vogt's tweet was likely an emotional response, it could also be seen as a passionate plea to reconsider the strategic shift based on his intimate knowledge of the project. The article doesn't delve into whether there might be valid rational arguments behind Vogt's criticism.

4. **Lack of Context - GM's Investment in Robotaxis:**
The article mentions that GM had invested $10 billion in robotaxi development but doesn't provide context about how much progress was made with this investment, making it difficult to evaluate whether the decision to shift focus was justified or not.

5. **Irrational Argument - Analysts' View on Robotaxi Challenges:**
Some analysts are quoted as saying that GM's confidence in personal AVs stems from the significant capital investment and operational challenges associated with scaling robotaxi fleets. While these challenges are real, implying that robotaxis are inherently more challenging than personal AVs might be an oversimplification or even an irrational argument, given that both technologies face significant hurdles.

6. **Emotional Behavior - Kyle Vogt's Tweet:**
Kyle Vogt's tweet calling GM "a bunch of dummies" can be seen as emotionally charged and may not contribute to a productive discussion about the strategic shift in focus.

In critique, it would be important to explore these aspects further, seek balance in reporting, and encourage more thoughtful discourse around the topic.

Based on the content of the article, here's an analysis of its overall sentiment:

1. **Positive aspects**:
- GM focusing on personal autonomous vehicles instead of robotaxi fleets is seen as a strategic shift by some analysts.
- This decision may address investors' concerns about the substantial investment with limited tangible results in robotaxi development.

2. **Negative aspects**:
- Former Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt criticized GM's decision, labeling it as a misguided move and using strong language ("a bunch of dummies").
- Elon Musk, Tesla CEO, highlighted the challenges in achieving a cost-effective general solution for autonomous driving.
- Microsoft and Google also face challenges in their efforts to advance self-driving technology.

Considering all these aspects, the article's sentiment can be described as **neutral to slightly negative**, as it presents both positive perspectives from analysts and criticisms or challenges mentioned by others.