I found the first half of the OP a worthwhile read. In it, the author describes past instances in which the optimism of scientists proved... highly premature. I

I found the first half of the OP a worthwhile read. In it, the author describes past instances in which the optimism of scientists proved... highly premature. It's a good reminder that we should always be skeptical of grandiose claims until proven otherwise. The second half of the OP was mediocre. In it, the author attempts to criticize the optimism around recent advances in AI as premature, but fails to make any valid criticisms -- some of his points are not even wrong. My take: He's writing about AI topics involving mathematical notions he doesn't actually understand (e.g., he likely has no idea what a manifold embedded in a high-dimensional space might be, nor how concepts might be represented by it).