I believe the main problem could be reframed as an improper use of analogies. People are pushing the analogy of "artificial intelligence" and "brain", etc. creating a confusion that leads to such "laws". What we have is a situation that is similar to birds and planes, they do not operate under the same principles at all.

Looking at the original claim, we can take from birds a number of optimization regarding air flows that are far beyond what any plane can do. But, the impact that could be transfer to planes would be minimal compared to a boost in engine technology. Which is not surprising since the way both systems achieve "flight" are completely different.

I don't believe such discourse would happen at all if it was just considered to be a number of techniques, of different categories with their own strength and weaknesses, used to tackle problems.

Like all fake "laws", it is based on a general idea that is devoid of any time-frame prediction that would make it falsifiable. In "the short term" is beaten by "in the long run". How far is "the long run"? This is like the "mean reversion law", saying that prices will "eventually" go back to their equilibrium price; will you survive bankruptcy by the time of "eventually"?