The article's author may not be a native English speaker. If so, the dismissal was not only unsubstantive but parochial. We have a lot of international content on HN and users need to read it charitably (and read other things charitably too).
I'm not saying we shouldn't make AI to rival humans at those things, but they simply aren't our greatest problems.
Making vision cheap and effective for computers will help humans not need to do such backbreaking work as picking fruit (which was protected from automation because it depended on vision and dexterous manipulation). In agriculture, computer vision could lead to plant-level care, reducing the need for chemicals.
"are, together, the greatest problem in science and technology." - You probably get this: together, those problems are the "golden ring" (or brass ring - see the carousel metaphor at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_ring) of science.
my paraphrasing would be:
"Intelligence is the greatest problem in science and technology today."
You're wasting reader's time on meaningless, unproved statements. Perhaps he should demonstrate why that is the case. Or say "X considers Intelligence ..." and then quote him.
But also I agree with Dr. Poggio's first statement in the paper (i.e.,"The problems of Intelligence are, together, the greatest problem in science and technology today."). I have a proof that this is so, however I haven't the time to post it this small textbox and be assured of no typos. Tempus fugit.
But if you know of other problem(s) that you believe are greater then you should indeed reveal them to us.