Are you trying to say that's bad writing? I think it's a good metaphor for a documented phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_collapse
The predicted consequences have now had time to manifest, and have not done so. This makes the claim either false or overstated. Perhaps there will be issues in the future, but to date there have been many claims that AI development will stall (for a variety of reasons). If they were the critical weaknesses they have been portrayed as, models would not have advanced to the level they are today.
If you have a hypothesis, make a clear prediction based upon it. If you start pushing the date forward after each failed prediction, you end up looking like a hapless doomsday cult. If your hypothesis is correct however, your prediction should actually happen. Then provided you have not made so many predictions to get one right by chance, people will take what you have to say seriously.
Seems like this chaps problem was that the actions were based upon a different hypothesis than the one he stated. X will cause Y by the end of the year is considerably different to X will eventually cause Y.