There are lots of people claiming "philosophy is dead" or "philosophy is pointless" over the last century of philosophic thought. These have taken a variety of directions.
Most noteworthy, but least recently, Logical Positivism attempted to banish all but logic and linguistics from philosophy, specifically targeting metaphysics as something that was meaningless. LP's project was widely popular within philosophy, but the movement then collapsed when its core assumptions were demonstrated to be METAPHYSICAL claims themselves.
A follow on movement, Ordinary Language philosophy, sought to banish all but linguistics from philosophy, by "curing" the misidentification of philosophy questions by supposedly showing how the questions supposedly being addressed were only created by flawed misuse of language. An example was "The Concept of Mind" by Ryle, where Ryle claimed that minds do not exist -- they are instead a flawed and artificial artifact of linguistic errors. He called minds a "category error". OLP and its approach of "curing" the misidentification of basically any philosophical problem by linguistic gamesmanship, never gained the following of Logical Positivism. Both Logical Positivism and Ordinary Language Philosophy were inspired by Ludwig Wittgenstein, although he never self identified with either movement.
With the collapse of logical positivism, philosophers in general re-engaged with metaphysics, and in doing so often relied upon philosophic intuitions. The criticisms of reductionism in philosophy of mind rely upon intuitionist arguments, including "What is it like to be a bat", "Mary the Color Scientist", and "The Chinese Room" thought problems. Also, Saul Kripke used a set of intuitionist arguments to bring "metaphysical necessity" and "essences" into the assumption behind much philosophic thinking. See Is metaphysical necessity an unambiguous concept, and if so, how do we capture it?
Hawking, and a variety of other contemporary scientists, still basically hold by a Logical Positivist, and material reductionist worldview, and disagree with the rejection of both by contemporary philosophy. They also retain an empirical skepticism of intuitionist thinking which is now common in philosophy. Hawking is not the only contemporary scientist who offers a similar attack on philosophy. These science-based attacks point to the relative rate of progress in science vs. philosophy, and often cite that as part of a claim that philosophy is "useless". In general, academic philosophers consider such attacks to be philosophically uninformed, as these scientists have not followed why the LP and reductionist assumptions they preferer have been mostly abandoned in philosophy.
The other major avenue of critique of contemporary philosophy is attacks on analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy is the dominant method among most academic philosopher, and it tends to use complex academic jargon, and look at very narrow and abstract questions rather than the "big" questions of what is the nature of our world, and how should we live in it. The relative uselessness of analytic philosophy in addressing life questions is a major motivation behind the "public philosophy" movement -- which seeks to re-engage the general public with philosophic questions. The clearest advocacy of this "public relevance" attack is found in Christopher Phillips' Socrates Cafe book: https://www.amazon.com/Socrates-Cafe-Fresh-Taste-Philosophy/dp/039332298X