So, essentially, a computer can do a repetitive, algorithmic (laying out the transistors, etc.), verifiable (simulate it and see if it is working as expected) task faster than a human... as computers have been designed to do since the beginning... Also, it designed a i486-level CPU (with a RISC instruction set, so exactly what are we really comparing?). That's peanuts, nowadays, and it would not seriously hit issues like heat dissipation, synchronization, or even laying out the pathways due to quantum effects for low nanometer scale and high clock speed CPUs of today, and that impose serious constraints on CPU design. A whole different game.
It is still interesting, but I am getting a bit tired of the "AI scaremongering, humans are obsolete" headlines.
I think it's more like a 4 year old coming up to you and saying "Look what I drew!", and it's a picture of your family except you're all stick people standing in front of a disproportionately small house with big smiles on their faces, which is obviously wholly unrealistic because you never smile anymore, but you don't compare it to Rembrandt, you say "Good job, sweetie!" and you put it on the fridge. If you encourage them to make more art and improve over the next, whatever, 10, 15, 20 years, maybe they will be able to paint something rivaling a Rembrandt, one day.
I love your metaphor! It is exactly that, only people look at the stick figures and wonder if they can just fire the guy doing the family portrait because “even a child can do it”…