I think it's still debatable if there are any AI researchers at all because ML is not AI by a long shot. Also I think he considers himself more of an AI philosopher than a "researcher" anyway, and that, in my opinion, gives his words as much weight as any others'.
Allow me to go hypothetical for a moment: do you really believe that the emergence of AI will come strictly from ML advancements?
I do not, and based on the direction of ML progress from the last couple of years I am becoming more and more certain that it will have a low impact on AI, if/when that materializes.
Therefore I won't scoff at someone that's not involved in ML but still considers themselves as being part of the AI world, at least not without more evidence that they're an impostor. Take John Carmack for example, at which people look down in similar ways, because has no formal training in ML.
I think AI field at present is in an pre-Enlightenment period, where people studying astrology, alchemy mix up freely with astronomers, chemists and philosophers and it will take some time until we can discern the useful from the useless, or from the outright harmful.
I don't think AGI as we fantasize about will ever exist, period. Not unless we completely change our computational paradigm to at least partially biological or quantum.
