I think he does offer some compelling arguments in this article, worth at least examining rather than dismissing based on his past skepticism. Particularly about the potential harmony between deep learning and symbolic manipulation, which is enormously difficult (a far cry from the set-and-forget style that has taken DL so far), but perhaps cracking AGI will require us to do a little more difficult work. I'd love to be proved wrong here, though! My depth of understanding on DL is pretty shallow.