From the article: a human hand has about 17,000 low-threshold mechanoreceptors in the glabrous skin (where hair doesn’t grow) of the hand, with about 1,000 of them right at the tip of each finger, but with much lower density over the rest of each finger and over the palm. These receptors come in four varieties (slow vs fast adapting, and a very localized area of sensitivity vs a much larger area) and fire when they sense pressure applied or released.
Where can you buy the artificial equivalent?
Naturalistic fallacies will only carry you so far. For example, my 12 year old car has none of the incredibly adapted limbs and muscles of a cheetah, but can still easily exceed the animal land speed.
The article makes a compelling case that a certain kind of sensory input and learning is necessary to crack robotic movement in general, it remains to be seen if such a fine array of sensors as the human hand is useful outside very specific use-cases. A robot that can stock shelves reliably would still be immensely useful and very generalizable, even if it can't thread the needle due to limited fine sensory abilities.
You are moving the goalpost.
Title of the article you're commenting: Why Today’s Humanoids Won’t Learn Dexterity
Thesis the article is contradicting: The idea is that humanoid robots will share the same body plan as humans, and will work like humans in our built for human environment. This belief requires that instead of building different special purpose robots we will have humanoid robots that do everything humans can do.
You are now arguing that a specialized robot lacking dexterity would still be immensely useful. Nobody is disputing that. It's just not what the article is about.