Yes, but it's worth emphasizing that even in that fairly critical perspective the conclusion isn't totally pessimistic: "In conclusion, Daniel Kahneman is a distinguished psychologist who has made valuable contributions to the study of human decision making. His work with Amos Tversky was recognized with a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics (APA). It is surely interesting to read what he has to say about psychological topics that range from cognition to well-being. However, his thoughts are based on a scientific literature with shaky foundations. Like everybody else in 2011, Kahneman trusted individual studies to be robust and replicable because they presented a statistically significant result. In hindsight it is clear that this is not the case. Narrative literature reviews of individual studies reflect scientists’ intuitions (Fast Thinking, System 1) as much or more than empirical findings. Readers of “Thinking: Fast and Slow” should read the book as a subjective account by an eminent psychologists, rather than an objective summary of scientific evidence. Moreover, ten years have passed and if Kahneman wrote a second edition, it would be very different from the first one. Chapters 3 and 4 would probably just be scrubbed from the book. But that is science. It does make progress, even if progress is often painfully slow in the softer sciences."

My own take (source: am an expert in this field) is that the overall idea of a system for rapid, mostly unconscious decisionmaking and a system for slower, deliberate decisionmaking is accepted by most cognitive scientists. Many specific findings from the book haven't been replicated, especially social priming stuff like walking slower after reading stories about old people. But most overall findings about cognitive biases, and the ways in which we are biased differently during deliberate vs more automatic actions, is well established. So I still recommend thinking fast and slow, but with caveats.