Sure but quite a few claims in the article are about AI research. He does not have any qualifications there. If the focus was more on usefulness, that would be a different discussion and then his experience does add weight.

Don't see how that gives him more credibility wrt AI.

His entirely unsupported statements about AGI are pretty useless, for instance.

So many people assume AGI is possible, yet no one has a concrete path to it or even a concrete definition of what it or what form it might take.