(Don't get me wrong: I've been reading science fiction for half a century and I wish it may happen. I devoutly hope it might. I want it to happen. The difference is, I don't think it will.)
Whereas the article is attempting to be factual.
The built in incentives for technology to improve will continue after we get smart robots. This will change things.
In a couple of decades it will be very hard to argue that they aren’t human 2.0 or <n>.0. And if we still insist, they might decide for us. I don’t fervently hope for this but I am very curious how it plays out.
The opposite view to yours is valid: Us not arriving at human 2.0 would only be possible by a long chain of improbable events. And in this view those who think we will continue as we are (cancer-susceptible meat bags) are the ones taking a quasi religious position.
I am 57. I've been working in this industry for 36 years. The computer world is no closer to machine intelligence today than it was in 1988 when I walked into my first job. It's no closer than in 1981 when I touched my first microcomputer.
LLM bots are not in any way intelligent, but they do expose a type of flawed non-analytical thinking in humans that is easily persuaded that a machine is intelligent if it can emit coherent sentences.
I think you are totally wrong and that this will be abundantly apparent in a decade, perhaps in half a decade. The next few years will usher in the latest AI winter, just as they did a generation ago and a generation before that.
> (short of global, civilization-ending catastrophe)
We are well on our way to that, and almost certainly past the point of no return.
https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to...
As early as 2012 or 2013 Elon was in an interview where he said, instead of humans, sending conscious beings to Mars. Then later he switched to using the word human, presumably because he didn't want to freak people out and complicate the conversations.