How is it not true here? Plenty of papers in this release are hard to follow, use non-standard terminology, make hard to understand leaps, and so forth.
Sorry you don't like the phrasing.
What I do not don are these rose-tinted, thought-terminating glasses which make people assume that this just must be an impenetrable product of superhuman intelligence.
I have no idea what you mean by this? The experts, including many here, don't seem to think it's unlikely.
1) Many humans labored for many years to solve these problems and did not.
2) Something else did solve at lest some of these problems.
3) The thing that did wasn't human.
What else do you need to know before you can allow yourself to be happy just to live in such an exciting time?
I had initially understood you as saying that this inscrutable logic was merely a consequence of superhuman intelligence, which is what I deemed unlikely. I don't see experts agreeing with that position either.
I am not unhappy about this result, but I am somewhat unhappy about it being dumbed down, decontextualised and understood without any nuance.