The stance is defensible but the article reads like it was written in 2023. Still using the term 'stochastic parrot', in 2026, when century-old mathematical problems are being proven by LLMs almost on a weekly basis doesn't make sense.
It was also deeply uneconomic, and didn't change the world, or materially advance our understanding. Mostly it's demoralised the mathematicians already working to solve those problems. They're not going to say 'That's great, I can now devote my energies to another problem', they're more likely to look at 10 years of poorly paid intellectually rigorous work and go home and kick the dog. For a headline.