Not by just feeding in past time series. That's like asking an LLM to call a baseball game in real time, based on just old games. Too many specifics will be wrong.
Yeah I don't understand the kvetching about someone making a movie. What's the downside?
* The movie might suck.
* Millions of people might watch a movie I don't like
* Family or friends might force me to watch it.
Two words: why should I care?
Exception: If you personally are Homer, I'd like to hear your thoughts.
A typical new quantitative idea has no application to real-world physics or economics. You don't refine it, you notice that it fails to fit the data and you throw it away. This is almost all new ideas, unfortunately.
Of course there are a few exceptions. Newton, Planck, Bohr, Adam Smith, and Keynes seem to have gotten some things right. But to first order, new ideas are not "too simplified" they are totally wrong.
Re the linked piece, I'm concerned about people saying "they hate us" when they really mean "they disagree with us" or "they seem skeptical of what we say." It can easily become click bait.
The language changes, sure ... but equating disagreement with the emotion of hatred? Maybe that language change is a bad idea? Just spitballing here.
TFA gives an example where kids are at risk and an old person is misusing a phone. It is clearly not advocating for this scenario to occur more often. Can you show anything else to indicate that the conclusion is "toughen them up"?