Assuming this article itself isn't autogenerated (which given the sheer number of typoes it probably isn't), the author grossly overestimates what the paper(s) report.
I don't think the author is overestimating, I remember when this paper came ouy it was printed/aired all over the media as a The Great AI That Can Read Your Thoughts (TM).
I thinking he's just piling on the hype and showing what it really was.
