This is another genre of AI article that annoys me: The one where the author starts by agreeing with you that AI is a definitely a bubble, and we’re gonna just “know” that for the rest of the article, no argument necessary.

I don’t feel like this article is trying to start a conversation, it wants to end the conversation so we can have dessert (aka, catastrophizing about the outcome of the thing “we know” is bad).

The basic assumption of the article is that there is a bubble. You want an entirely different article then about whether there is a bubble. You just don't like the conversation it's starting because you also disagree with its base assumption.