How is this article different from a tired rehashing of the "Chinese Room" argument of Searle which never made much sense to begin with?

People argued the same way about computer chess, "it doesn't really understand the board, it is just checking all possibilities", etc. People like Chomsky used to say that a computer will never beat a master chess or go player because it "lacks the imagination to come up with a strategy", etc. No-one makes that argument anymore. Von Neumann already remarked in the 1940s that AI is a moving goalpost because as something is achieved, it doesn't seem intelligent anymore.

Chomsky's arguments were already debunked by Norvig a decade ago. Instead of bothering to respond, he writes another high-brow dismissal in flowery prose.