another point is that Linear Regression IS Machine/statistical Learning. Sure its been around for more than 100 years before computation, but regression algorithms are learning algorithms.
Arguing for more linear regression to solve a firms problems, is equivalent to arguing for machine learning. Now, if instead he wanted to argue that the vast majority of a businesses prediction problems can be solved by simple algorithms, that is most likely true. but economic impact of this is still a part of the economic impact of machine learning.
If we're classing linear regression as machine learning and agreeing it's a representative example of the type of simple algorithm that's most likely to benefit firms, I think it probably helps his point rather than harming it. It's a technique that's been around for ages, is far from arcane knowledge and every business has had the computing capability to run useful linear regressions on various not-particularly-huge datasets in a user-friendly GUI app for at least a couple of decades now.
For the most part they haven't run those regressions at all, and where they have, they haven't been awe-inspiringly successful in their predictions, never mind so successful the models are supplanting the research of their knowledge-workers.
This overshoots the target. It's like saying that we use algebra and therefore =/= AI.
LR and general regression schemes are captured in supervised learning methods. So yes, the systems use linear regression as a fundamental attribute but build on them significantly.
Arguing for more linear regression to solve a firms problems, is equivalent to arguing for machine learning. Now, if instead he wanted to argue that the vast majority of a businesses prediction problems can be solved by simple algorithms, that is most likely true. but economic impact of this is still a part of the economic impact of machine learning.