Ed has constantly done this, and it's a shame because it has taken the air out of the room for real AI criticism. Most of Ed's criticism comes from a place of giving a narrative to people who are wishing for a magic bullet that makes ChatGPT vanish tomorrow rather than actually pressuring companies about the harms this technology can cause. This in part is why his writing so often focuses on perceived financial issues (despite his lack of credentials in financial journalism) rather than the social harms the technologies cause today (slop, delusions, manipulated truth).
I definitely seen him cited as an authority by AI critics far more than anyone else. The bending truth to tell them what they want to hear (and the gratuitous swearing) really helps.
Per number of words in article possibly. But I do not think he "sucks air out of other critics".
I mostly assume that most people end reading his articles somewhere in first third and go on reading something easier to read. His articles are not exactly casual read material and they are loooong. You have to have certain kind of personality to get over first few paragraphs.
