That's not entirely fair when sites are unavailable. And especially annoying is when sites are behind paywalls. Sometimes I use an old mobile device, and most news sites cause the browser to crash. So I just read the comments instead.
Though leaving a top level comment based just on the title is a little extreme. Even if you know the subject, you have no idea what the argument or information in the article is. I wouldn't mind replying to someone else's comment though.
You're main points are true, but I think you have one thing backwards. We're not finding a way around stupidity, we need to teach machines to perceive things the same way we do.
All of the Piaget conservation illustrations are critical towards understanding bottom up "raw" perception that is untempered by top down logic. I'll actually be more impressed when we can show machines functioning in the same way.
That was not the state of the art then. You can read the state of the art for yourself in the 2012 ImageNet competition (see the 2nd place team): http://image-net.org/challenges/LSVRC/2012/results.html. Fisher vectors + SIFT + GIST + some other hand-crafted features.
Only a couple of years ago, this was probably the state of the art: http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~yann/research/norb/
You can see how much progress has been made since then.
Yes, some people have been able to find synthetic images that can fool a deep learning based solution.
Even humans are stupid too at young ages. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnArvcWaH6I
Scientists will understand why and find a way around it eventually.
The field we call "human intelligence tasks" is narrowing down at a really aggressive pace and that is scary.