Agreed, and right from the get-go (the first section on "Addressing AI Fallacies"). Cherry-picking failed predictions (from a far less sophisticated era) makes for a catchy-sounding argument, but has no merit on the nuts-and-bolts discussion of whether a generative model can really compete with what a skilled human does, in the big picture sense.

It was a pretty sad write-up, overall. Literally ChatGPT itself could do better, per one of its answer to a variant of the same question:

“It is unlikely that ChatGPT or Alphacode will replace programmers” because they are “not capable of fully replacing the expertise and creativity of human programmers...programming is a complex field that requires a deep understanding of computer science principles and the ability to adapt to new technologies.”