Anyway, the original article is probably correct, but it's missing the whole story. Very likely, the future AI panic will be followed by a gradual recovery to a sustainable level of investment, as we as an industry learn what generative AI is actually good at and what it's bad at. In other words, the article is consistent with the upcoming "trough of disillusionment" part of the Gartner hype cycle around generative AI. But the trough of disillusionment won't last forever, and I certainly think that generative AI has its uses (for example, automatically moderating the most vile content so that human moderators aren't at risk for PTSD).
What if instead of that quote you had posted one of a correct prediction, such as a claim that NFTs were a fad? Would that then mean that this article is right?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17184054
But seriously, there's nothing in this article to debate, it is completely devoid of arguments for its position.