TBF it's a terrible title and the overview isn't exactly enticing in it's implication:

Let's get physicists to look at AI so we might make some progress, btw here's a new book that tells us how

I'm not saying that's what the article is actually about but that's what I read from it and it's crass enough that I didn't read further.

It's a risk any catchy headline takes. Seems like the same property that entices people to click also entices people to engage the headline itself.

I read TFA, hence the reference to intuition. There is nothing in the article that makes a compelling case of physics being simple, other than rhetoric.

We forget at our peril the Michelson-Morley Experiment and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, and if we forget these, we may assume now too that we have it all figured out.

Of course, active researchers in the subject, both theoretical and experimental, do not forget.

Because it is awful.

Titles have to be short, and as such they can't hope to represent the contents of the article completely accurately. If you wanted to do that you would have to make the title equal to the article's contents.

Based on the parts which I've read so far, a more accurate title would be 'Why some currently hot parts of AI not well understood, and some parts of Physics well understood?'

I think the original title is an ok approximation of this.