I guess the right things to take from the article are (1) the validity of the criticism, as a legitimate face value observation, but also as a way of sketching

I guess the right things to take from the article are (1) the validity of the criticism, as a legitimate face value observation, but also as a way of sketching the kinds of problems and areas where we hope for progress and (2) the fact that Google Translate is nevertheless useful in its current form. I think his overall thesis isn't a declaration that no further progress will be possible, but that it may have to draw from resources that are more than just statistical associations of words - things like interior human experiences. So it would not just measure words against surrounding passages, but against some understanding of concept generation that emerges from human subjectivity. And, this is where I think a fuse blows for many people, things get complicated, circuits fry, and people find themselves filled with an urge to declare"well, computers just CAN'T do X." But I think what Hofstadter is saying is that it is a hard problem but also the kind of thing that in principle could be done to make progress on translation.