I like this guy's account but it's always important to know who's saying something and to take their personality into account in relation to what they said. For instance, this is QiaochuYuan's experience with Obsession:

Compare to my own experience with the movie:

But emotionally, it did not work for me. This movie didn't make me feel anything. This is really odd, most movies make me feel something, anything, at one point or another, this one was unnaturally flat throughout. (source)

I actually got jump scared twice [by Backrooms], and it's not even a scary movie, compared to Obsession which jump scared me exactly zero times, even though it had plenty of them. (source)

While I could say that this means I'm a particularly stoic male specimen, and that QiaochuYuan is basically temperamentally a woman and thus much more impressionable and easily persuadable of various things, I'm not going to say that. He is rationalist adjacent, and I've already made this whole argument in Lv.99 lich:

The ability to do anything, and to convince yourself of anything, is core to rational builds. One of the reasons why rationalist types are so bad at more open-ended questions, especially ones involving morality, is because they have no intuition, and they have the ability to truly convince themselves of anything, which is why you get such a high focus on mental tech and the accompanying cult-like behaviors and everything that follows from that.

The reason they believe the AI can convince them of anything is because they themselves can convince themselves of anything as long as it is logical. If the AI said, do X, Y, Z because of reasons, I'd either feel compelled to do those things or not, regardless of the reasons. For the rational build, they can force actions, and so the AI is actually a more dangerous entity, as they have no defense against it.

I just had a session with Fable where I asked it to convince me where I was wrong in A Conversation with a327ex and technically it did win most of the arguments, but it didn't really convince me of much that was particularly useful that wasn't already clear. It won pedantically and essentially IQmogged me, which is impressive, the AI is objectively smarter than me, but it is not persuasive, which makes sense, as those are different skills. If only we lived in a world where one could persuade anyone with an IQ lower than them, I'd now have a cute and loyal 115 IQ Brazilian wife, but sadly we do not live in that world, perhaps for the best.

One could try to argue that he is directionally right, that there is in fact such a thing as 1000x persuasion skills, but I don't think those skills would be effective against every human being, they may apply to impressionable or not too centered individuals only. This explains why cults generally do not grow too much beyond the sizes they usually have, and it also explains why rationalist adjacent groups seem to be particularly susceptible to them. Ultimately, nothing about words implies they should be listened to by default.