The fascinating part for me is toward the end of the article where he talked about the 2005 Playchess.com competition, in which teams of humans are free to use computers to compete in Chess.  To everyone's surprise, a team of amateurs with 3 cheap computer won against both stand-alone computers and Grandmasters with state-of-the art computers.<p>His take away message:
"Weak human + machine + better process was superior to a strong computer alone and, more remarkably, superior to a strong human + machine + inferior process".<p>I see this trend going on in AI for the long time, where the best use of development goes to augmenting human intelligence rather than supplanting it.