My issue with the conclusions (or allusion) in the article is that i am not at all seeing how the AI actually does something which is communication. If a program is set to have a discussion with you, the program obviously is not aware of you or of the meaning of discussion. It wouldn't in the case of doing the analogous with another program. What is not there is the sense of something being done. A program isn't sensing it does anything, nor that it exists. No context or sense cannot be producing a deliberation, but only an automatic progression of the program, which itself is not tied to any sense of change either; a rock falls if you drop it from above, but it isn't aware it is falling nor does it need to so as to keep falling until it reaches the ground. If i would hazard a guess, based on the very little i know of machines working that way (automatically), the basis of what is going on is the triggering of some change through inherent change-ability of some power source, eg electricity. Ie the machine changes to some mode it can, if some property of the circuit it runs changes and the human creator has tied that change to the other one. There is no sense or deliberation or goal there.