Please don't be snarky or curmudgeonly in HN comments. You can make your substantive points without either of those things, both of which the site guidelines ask you not to do.
Did the writing also contain emotion? Yes. As all good persuasive writing should.
The main issue is that it doesn't engage with the substance of the post, and in fact, it exemplifies the very point the post is trying to make: there is a big and growing gap between those who recognize the benefits or potential of AI and those who don't (or, to widen the point, who only see negative effects or negative trends in society).
I'll make it clear that I don't think your complaints or concerns are unfounded or invalid. There's merit and substance to all these issues, and it's fine to discuss them on HN. They are discussed all the time here, and they can and should continue to be discussed in the future.
But an important part of being the kind of curious commenter that we want everyone to aspire to be is that we can look at topics holistically. We need to be able to look at the opportunities and risks together and discuss ways that the benefits can be captured and shared throughout society, and the risks and costs adequately recognized and curtailed. Most people I know of in the tech industry are taking these matters seriously.
It's a vast and complex topic to discuss, and here's not the place for me to get further into it. But the point is that it's a bigger and more complex topic than your comment adequately recognizes, and we need people to always be making the effort to be thoughtful and curious rather than fulminatory or denunciatory in their participation here.
(Also: I can understand you may not easily recognize that your comment breaks the guidelines; it's common for people to not recognize that their words seem more inflammatory when read by others than they intended them to be.)
The people who are optimistic about AI believe it can help to address or reverse these trends. It's fine to debate the merits of that belief, but the original comment wasn't trying to do anything like that.
> It would be really cool if you guys enforced these rules uniformly.
I agree! But we can't, because there's way too much content for us to read it all, and we can't moderate what we don't see.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Can you point out what a good way of expressing disagreement or skepticism about a subject matter looks like on HN?
There are so many comments on HN that would justify your attention with regard to this specific rule. This is not one of them.