While what you say about the vulnerabilities of AES is true, it is very easy to modify AES to remove these weaknesses, and in a way that still allows the use of

While what you say about the vulnerabilities of AES is true, it is very easy to modify AES to remove these weaknesses, and in a way that still allows the use of the special AES instructions of CPU ISAs like Intel/AMD x86-64 or ARM Aarch64, so that the decreasing of the encryption/decryption throughput would be very small. There are several ways to achieve this. An example would be to replace a few of the XOR (additions modulo 2) operations that introduce subkeys between the AES rounds with another kind of addition instructions, e.g. with addition modulo 2^64. These additions do not commute with the operations in the Galois field used by AES and they completely destroy the system of equations in that Galois field that is equivalent with the standard AES, making impossible any algebraic attempts at breaking AES. Moreover, if the additions would replace XOR in irregular places, that would make some of the rounds distinct from the others, breaking an attack that depends on all the rounds being identical. By replacing quasi-randomly the XOR operations with either addition modulo 2^64 or addition modulo 2^32 it is possible to make all the AES rounds distinct, with no pair of identical rounds and with only a negligible throughput decrease. Also using the usual hardware AES instructions, it is simple to implement the Rijndael variant with a block size of 256 bits, which is much stronger than the standard AES with a block size of 128 bits (this has been described in an Intel application note when they have introduced the AES instructions in the Intel Westmere CPUs, in 2010). So any possible advances in the cryptanalysis of AES will have effects only for the decryption of old recordings of encrypted information. Future encrypted information will be easily protected against any advances with only software changes.