That's a hefty assumption, especially if you're including accuracy.
That's exactly what the comment is saying. People see AI do 80% of a task and assume development speed will follow a linear trend and the last 20% will get done relatively quickly. The reality is the last 20% is hard-to-impossible. Prime example is self-driving vehicles, which have been 80% done and 5 years away for the past 15 years. (It actually looks further than 5 years away now that we know throwing more training data at the problem doesn't fix it.)
Take what is 100% complete in one city and do it in another city.
Problem was solved… you just missed the boat.
No, it's because if the promise of certain technologies is reached, it'd be a huge deal. And of course, that promise has been reached for many technologies, and it's indeed been a huge deal. Sometimes less than people imagine, but often more than the naysayers who think it won't have any impact at all.
Extrapolating in a linear fashion, in a few years my child will be ten foot tall, weight six hundred pounds, and speak 17 languages.
The first 90% is the easy part. It's the other 90% that's hard. People forget that, especially people who don't work in software/technology.