I agree 100% with you. The author starts the essay with the very technique that he uses later on the essay: frame the conversation in his terms (that LLMs are _not_ inevitable), and then once that's done, anyone who disagrees can be dismissed.

The irony is that he's doing it, just in the opposite direction of those he disagrees with.

Some things _are_ economically inevitable, and it's wishful thinking to ignore them. For example, it is inevitable that solar will be the primary form of electricity generation in the coming decades (and I am thankful that this is the case). For those that were watching closely, this was clear several years ago, and it is even more clear today.

People whose fortunes are built on the fossil fuel industry might wish it were otherwise, and they might dismiss "solar inevitabilists" with the same technique as the author. But those people would be wrong.

If someone says that something is inevitable, they could be wrong. But they could also be right.