Unfortunately creating one's own idiosyncratic ranking holds no value to the world if it doesn't conform to what the world values. (Open to counter arguments on what the world values)
People generally use rankings to gauge how strong a university is perceived. OP's comments do nothing to change my perception of the university's strength.
In general, it is much harder to create an AI that can do one's job perfectly than it is to find better ways to make a job obsolete. In a free market economy, if there is a way to make a job obsolete and improve economic productivity, it will be done.
If AI sees freak growth in efficacy, we will have greater things to worry about than the job market.
Open to any counterarguments, although do note that I have hedged my claims by using the terms "in general" and "perfectly". So if you know of a counterexample where it is not true, do let me know.
Your metric for ranking universities is in no way based on how productive the university is in research or the quality of the graduating students.
Even if you consider the things you mentioned as proxies for the quality of the university, they are extremely weak ones and there are better metrics available to judge the quality of a university.
Am I wrong in viewing this comment as a flawed attempt to attack the university? Open to any counterarguments.