I do not agree with your reading of the article. The premise - both implicit and stated explicitly throughout the article - is that companies are hyping this up because they want to be seen as growing, that this technology cannot do your job, that these are statistical tools foolishly being used to replace real workers. Look at the bits I quote in my other comment.
I would have been much more interested in reading the article you’re suggesting.
You need to read the article again with a more charitable lens. He starts with
>What I do not do is predict the future. No one can predict the future, which is a good thing, since if the future were predictable, that would mean we couldn’t change it.
It feels like shoving words on Cory's mouth to make statements like "he's saying it can't replace us". That is the exact point he avoids in the article to focus on the human. Not the tech and capabilities.
I would have been much more interested in reading the article you’re suggesting.