Yes, that comment is much better and appreciated. I agree post-hoc description is not the same thing as mechanistic explainability at all. The article is indeed flawed in sort of muddying the distinction between these two.

EDIT: Actually the article makes the distinction at one point, but the emotional / hopeful thrust of the article relies heavily on an assumption that understandable post-hoc descriptions of e.g. neurons and circuits (model components) are going to help lead to real mechanistic explanations and more specific model design.

This has not so clearly been the case in other fields (e.g. neuroscience, human psychology, economics, etc), because the problem of emergentism / the whole generally being much more than the sum of its parts / components.