This article makes a revelation of the pretty trivially true claim that philosophy is an undercurrent of thought. If you ask, why do we do science, the answer is philosophical.
But the mistake many philosophers make is extrapolating philosophy being a discipline that reveals itself when fundamental questions about an activity are asked, into a belief that philosophy, as a discipline, is necessary to that activity.
AI doesn't require an understanding of philosophy any more than science does. Philosophers may argue that people always wonder about philosophical things, like, as the article says, teleology, epistemology and ontology, but that relation doesn't require an understanding of the theory. A scientist doesn't need to know any of those words to do science. Arguably, a scientist ought to know, but they don't have to.
The article implies that AI leaders are currently ignoring philosophy, but it isn't clear to me what ignoring the all-pervasive substratum of thought would look like. What would it look like for a person not to think about the meaning of it all, at least once at 3am at a glass outdoor set in a backyard? And, the article doesn't really stick the landing on why bringing those thoughts to the forefront would mean philsophy will "eat" AI. No argument from me against philosophy though, I think a sprinkling of it is useful, but a lack of philosophy theory is not an obstacle to action, programming, creating systems that evaluate things, see: almost everyone.