From what I've seen lately, Ed isn't saying the technology isn't significant. He criticizes the fact that AI companies are dumping this kind of money into it with circular financing deals. If it goes like you say, (GPUs at home) the AI labs will be destroyed, because no one will need the inference capacity they're dumping money into when they can do the decent part at home. From what I've seen he says it's more "not worth the investment" rather than not a breakthrough. It just sucks compared to the trillions they're spending which they'll never recover, is the argument. But I guess it's easier to strawman the argument to "this stuff isn't going to change anything".
He is saying technology isnt significant. Again and again and he puts a lot of emphasis on it. He is also focusing the circular financing deals, on it being a bubble etc.
Obviously, you can agree with one thing and not with other. And he can be right in one thing and not the other. But, if you listen to what he is saying, he is absolutely saying the technology is not significant.
I think you're misinterpreting a strongly worded "it isn't as great as the hype" with "there's nothing there". Because "nothing there that matches the hype" is both 100% true and completely different than "nothing there".
I don't think I am misinterpreting him. I did read some of his articles and did listened to some of his podcasts.
He is very very clear and open on what he thinks about usefulness of ai. He is not saying "it isn't as great as the hype". He is saying "it is useless". He is simply not the centrist kind of guy when it comes to AI usefulness.
