Most headlines _are_ clickbait, or at least they should be, to encourage people to read the articles. The problem is poor quality articles, not well-written headlines.
You seem to be intentionally using a different definition of the word than is generally accepted. A semantic argument about how to define "clickbait" isn't relevant to the original article.
Not really. My point is that we don't like these titles not because there's something inherently wrong with the titles, but because of a Pavlovian association between them and poor quality articles.
Besides that, it feels like every single HN comment thread will include someone denouncing the article as clickbait. If so many people can read the article and find value in it, what does it mean to call it clickbait? Are clickbait articles more likely to be read and upvoted?