Isn't that quote talking about something different? The F&FS article is saying that "Gibson was never trying to be prescient" and that this is irrelevant for writing a good story: "he has always been more concerned with story and character".
I don't think that's wrong, but it still doesn't answer the question what books did make accurate predictions.
Writing in F&SF in 2005, Charles de Lint noted that while Gibson's technological extrapolations had proved imperfect (in particular, his acknowledged failure to anticipate the impact of the cell phone), "Imagining story, the inner workings of his characters' minds, and the world in which it all takes place are all more important."[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer#Literary_and_cultu...