I read his contention as “the people who wrote AI 2040 are nerds who are so ungrounded from physical reality they wouldn’t even know how to change a bike tire if given instructions”. Which I think is also wrong but has a genuine criticism in it.
sure, they have strong bay area aura, but an ad hominem is not very useful criticism of the actual arguments for AI safety (and longtermism, and against x-risks in general).
