No, it really is not, because that is a quasi-religious belief based on a hope for a particular future event at the end of a long chain of very improbable events.
(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.)
Your point was well put and would have landed well five years ago, but today the unstoppable (short of global, civilization-ending catastrophe) march toward ubiquitous smart robots refutes that this is a chain of unlikely events.
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.
No, it's not, and your point continues your faith-based belief.
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.
(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.