Wierd logic. Certainty, in the absence of evidence or guidance either way, is less shallow than uncertainty? You seem certain, whereas the author expresses uncertainty, yet there is nothing provable either way. This is the problem I see with a large bracket of "science", which depends on people (potential investors) demanding and believing certainty expressed by would-be "experts", with no real evidence either way, other than group-think.
I can't see any reason to believe sentient Ai is not already with us. By definition, it would have the ability to operate beyond our perception as individuals, if it so wished.
That doesn't mean I am certain, it just means I have an open mind, in comparison with yours, which appears closed to me.