If cutting edge were a hard requirement then given the lead times involved I think the author would be correct. However I think there's a fundamental error in failing to account for the fact that you don't need cutting edge chips to do AI. Sure it makes it cheaper and faster but it's absolutely not a requirement. You could train a state of the art model on cluster of 12+ year old boxes (ie Intel's 22 nm and DDR3) but if you want to get the job done in a similar timeframe you're going to pay out the ass for electricity. Your research pipeline would necessarily be narrower due to physical and monetary limitations but that's not the end of the world.
I suspect the bottleneck on 12+ year old hardware wouldn't be power but the interconnects. SOTA training is bound by gradient synchronization latency. Without NVLink you hit a hard wall where the compute spends most of its time waiting on PCIe or ethernet.
That’s like saying you could train a state of the art model by hand, and it’ll only cost you a lot of man-hours.
Realistically, to train a frontier model you’d need quite a lot of compute. GPT4, which is old news, was supposedly trained on 25,000 A100s.
There’s just no reasonable way of catching modern hardware with old hardware+time/electricity.