This _is_ how Axios writes.

The link is already the full article, despite how it looks... =)

Intellectual Property is one of the last true oppressive forces on humankind's progress. Its purpose is to concentrate wealth and power and extract wealth from everyone else, on what amounts to trickle-down theory: that someone needs to own all the wealth so they can "create jobs" for the plebs. The idea that this protects "lone" inventors is a farce, as in the best case, this "lone" inventor then becomes a rich magnate. China has long made the idea moot, since they can make a clone of anything for cheaper and sell it right back to us.

I can't wait for AI to kill IP, so we can move on to a society with less wealth inequality and cheaper access to information and technology.

As far as being anti-human? No technological device has ever made us better people. We're clearly capable of killing each other by the millions without computers at all. AI is just another tool, which can be used for both good and bad, like every other tool we've made. If you're scared of it it's because you believe somehow the normal rules don't apply, but they do. Human societies are governed by human relationships. The tools are merely wielded by humans as a part of those human relationships. We, as a collective society, dictate how the tools are used, by whom, for what purpose. Even when it's "someone in power" wielding them, we decide who is in power, by our compliance to and support of power. In other words, no tool, even AI, will change the fact that it's humans that dictate how their world works. You cannot blame the hammer for bashing someone's skull in.

> There is nothing in the bible that would support replacing human thought with machines.

Based on that, which of the following best applies?

a) Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)

b) Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.

c) a & b

I find that this is fairly normal for Axios: mechanically, an article will look like a kind of executive summary of a phenomenon or event but editorially it has a very confrontational argumentative style. It's been getting worse in the last year and I have to assume it's because the editorial org, like that of many other outlets is pushing for LLM use by its writers.