my father (then just a kid) and his father were watching an up-and-coming politician on TV; my grandfather turned to my father and said, "There's something about him I just don't trust." Who was he talking about? Why, VP candidate (and eventual president) Richard Nixon. If my grandfather could predict something like this happening twenty years in advance, then surely one of Wu's finest minds could make this prediction about his own son a mere decade in advance.
This is a false analogy fallacy. Judging a politician is not the same as judging your own son. The analogy doesn't hold up and the argument doesn't either. Having "something about a politician you just don't trust" isn't an amazing prediction. And secondly, based on what we know about Zhuge Ke's early life, there isn't a great deal of reason for me to believe that his father ardently distrusted him. In addition, there were many things about Nixon's early speeches and conduct that gave reasons for distrust. There is little about Zhuge Ke's early life, that we can see from the record anyways, that seems out of line. On the contrary, his early life made him seem like somebody who showed promise.
If Zhuge Ke distrusted him so much that he thought he'd bring ruin, he would have trained his son to serve in some other capacity. Overall, there is something fishy about the whole concept.
Add to it the fact that it's a cliche that happens with literally every event or chain of events that happens in the three kingdoms, and I am very skeptical. I mean seriously, this happens with every single freaking thing: Some fortune teller predicts that Liu Bei will take Hanzhong but not take all of the people, some guy in Wei predicts that Zhuge Ke will fall from power (how did he even have the information to make that prediction?), some Cao prince predicts that the Wei family policy of employing bureaucrats instead of strengthening the royal house will lead Wei to fall internally and that even in a civil war among princes, a dynasty would survive (thus predicting not only the cause of Wei's fall but also the War of the Eight Princes and the formation of Eastern Jin), Xun Yu knowing literally every single flaw of Yuan Shao's officers and how these flaws will lead to their downfalls.
I could go on. The examples are innumerable and so cliche and convenient that I find them all very hard to believe. They definitely seem the product of hindsight bias instead of reality to me. While certainly there were some instances where officers advised against a campaign because it had obvious drawbacks, and these I am inclined to think may have been real advice in many cases, in other cases it seems like a historian's embellishment.