I feel like this is a useless insight, as at the time (and now) few writers for the NYT have a firm grasp of how computers work and will advance. Coupled with the fact fewer still (at the time) knew what Moore's law was, they basically are just guessing.
Well yeah... That's the insight.
Sometimes, you don't know that you don't know. But you don't care.
Please don't rewrite story titles to single out the detail you think is important. That's editorializing, and it's against the rules here.
If you want to say what you consider important about an article, you can do so by adding a comment to the thread.
Haha, to anyone who would want to dispel the latest AI hype, tough luck! A pop-science journalist made some ill-informed prediction 20 years ago, so your arguments are invalid.