Your version is considerably worse, and imo, more verbose. It misses a multitude of subtleties that the author packs into a single phrase, and frankly, doesn’t even come close to saying the same thing.

I chalk it up to an American technical class who consider the height of good writing to be an O’Reilly book.

In particular, GP's version reads as introducing a defense of "AI companies", and this piece is not that.

To the extent that the article has a political thesis (the author was pretty careful to avoid one), I think it's "don't throw the LLM baby out with the OpenAI bathwater". But it's pretty clear to me that OpenAI being bathwater is taken as near-fact.