Plenty of current neuroscience fields were once only a question for philosophy but have graduated into matters of science (Kant has plenty of opinions about things which can easily be replaced with actual neuro- knowledge, for example)
There's a slightly ironic moment where the author mentions the pushback Ilya Sutskever got for tweeting "It may be that today's large neural networks are slightly conscious." This is not a view to which I would assign much credence, but it is more or less axiomatic (though in a different sense, perhaps) in some forms of panpsychism that I am also rather skeptical of (what on Earth does Goff mean when he says that electric charge is a form of consciousness?)
The quantitative argument is a red herring. Science is one of the disciplines in the business of explaining things, not in the business of calculating values, but it just so happens that when you get into the details, quantifying properties leads to better explanations. For example, I can give a qualitative explanation for why it rains, which can be expanded into a quantitative one.
The subjectivity of experience can be attributed to the scientifically-explainable inability of our conscious mind to directly access the physical state of the brain. If arguments such as "Mary the Neuroscientist" show anything, it is that phenomenal experiences can not be conveyed by any language, scientific or otherwise, so if you are demanding an explanation must do that, neither science nor philosophy nor anything else will explain consciousness.
Consciousness, being internal and subjective, exists at odds with anything else that science considers. Sure, study cognition and neurology, but there's an ontological gap between those and experience.
To claim an ontological gap is to put the cart before the horse. If or when we understand consciousness, we will be able to tell if there is a relevant ontological gap, or whether it is an illusion generated by our ignorance.
I agree with the second bit you are saying - we cannot convey these experiences so it is outside the realm of science.
Would you say that rain is inexplicable because no explanation can actually cause rain?