While that sounds ridiculous. I would point out that between about 2000-2009 was the age of the phpbb and weblog. It wasn't until the 2008 financial crisis and a decade of zirp, a decade of "unicorn" companies losing a billion a year for a decade, that "the internet" as a financial concern was anything more craigslists, ebay, google-adwords and a selection of e-catalogs.

Out of curiosity, I did a search through HN from a few years ago, and, just as I expected, people were bringing out that quote to argue against the cryptocurrency skeptics. Of course, the cryptocurrency skeptics were right all along.

Anyway, the original article is probably correct, but it's missing the whole story. Very likely, the future AI panic will be followed by a gradual recovery to a sustainable level of investment, as we as an industry learn what generative AI is actually good at and what it's bad at. In other words, the article is consistent with the upcoming "trough of disillusionment" part of the Gartner hype cycle around generative AI. But the trough of disillusionment won't last forever, and I certainly think that generative AI has its uses (for example, automatically moderating the most vile content so that human moderators aren't at risk for PTSD).

What’s your point? One person made a wrong prediction in the past, thus an different person commenting on an unrelated subject is also wrong?

What if instead of that quote you had posted one of a correct prediction, such as a claim that NFTs were a fad? Would that then mean that this article is right?