Eh? I'd compare it to No True Scotsman, not AI: I mostly hear people insist that anything which doesn't work isn't Agile.
I'm extremely grateful for the changes agile wrought on the software industry, and while I think many of the best insights have become commonplace, I don't think formal Agile methods are outdated or exhausted yet. But I do think formal Agile is extremely hard to do right, and has very common failure modes of knowingly-unrealistic planning, unproductive meetings, excess design changes, and tech debt neglected to ship MVPs.
One measure of a methodology is how much value it provides when it's used right, and I agree that Agile shines here. But it's also worth asking how easy a method is to get right, and how gracefully it devolves when things aren't perfect. My experience is that agile advocates commonly neglect those parts, dismissing widespread frustration with 'bad agile' on the basis that if it had been implemented perfectly, those issues wouldn't have come up.
