Did you? If you keep on reading, the parent comment further implies that both AI companies and uber are "vibes based". But that's hard to square with the fact that 7 years since IPO the share price is up 75%. Of course, you can argue we're still in the irrational exuberance stage, but that just creates a situation where you can never be called wrong.
Uber has severely underperformed the market. Passive S&P500 index funds had a total return of more than double that in the same time period, while also having less risk than investing in a single stock.
Obviously much worse outcomes are possible than Uber's, but it's far from a massive success, especially after all that hype! This isn't to say the old common wisdom about excessive funding rounds was valid, but it's not completely invalid either.
I don't think so. They say the rules are vibes-based (or just wrong). That means you cannot use the rule to draw conclusions. That does not mean "the opposite of the rule is true" or anything like that. Nor does it mean that the AI companies resemble Uber in any significant way. They are just saying that since the rules are not real, you cannot say something like "this business will obviously fail, because it has bad fundamentals". The fundamentals are only part of the equation.