It's important to note that this is a rather controversial paper. For one, the authors aren't actually neolithic experts, they're (presumably otherwise excellent) engineers. They also don't get the dating right and fail to cite a wide range of literature relating the iconography at Gobekli Tepe to a wide variety of sites in the region like Jerf el Ahmar and Tell al-'Abr where it appears in more pedestrian contexts. Moreover, their argument relies on the extremely controversial and as-yet unsettled Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis. After assuming this (fine), they leap straight into assuming they understand both what the original authors were intending (completely unsubstantiated) and that these intentions were shared by disparate cultures across multiple continents and tens of thousands of years (mostly covered in a followup paper). This was egregious enough that many of the archaeologists working on Gobekli Tepe wrote a group paper [1] pointing out some of the methodological issues and problems with how their conclusions failed to follow from them.
As a disclaimer, I'm a big proponent of outsiders contributing to unrelated fields and do so myself as an archaeologist in tech. The way to do it is not by ignoring prior work done in the field, but instead by engaging with it constructively. These authors haven't really done that and it shows in the quality of this paper.