Nope,
you would still argue ( no doubt about it ) because you wont never admit to be wrong

Do you want to increase the speed from 0.1c up to 1.c ?
Do you think it is a smart solution ?

No it is not, for at least a couple of good reasons

a)
Did you notice that " Horribly slow " stands for " 3\4 the age of universe " ?

If some one claims
" it is impossible to go on foot, from New York to los Angeles , in one day "
and some one else replied
" On foot maybe not, but cycling it could be possible, it is ten time faster "

What would you think of him ?

b)
You give for granted that a further increase of the speed or in general of the technological level is, in any case , a benefit
Are you so sure ?

You must match the exploration time and the maximum amount of time at disposal for the exploration

this one is given by :

The age of their planet ( not of universe ) - The evolution time from the scratch up to the technological level

The higher the technological level the higher the needed time

Experience demostrate that it relativly easy to make big progress at the beginning but afterward the learning curve get steeper

In conclusion it may be not worth while waiting for a 1c technology simply becauste it would take too long time

Same consideration for self replicating probes

The only real advantage is to increase the number of probes
Mr Bjork run an other simulation with 200 probes and 8 sub probes
The result are quoted in the article