Yeah, it has a strange sense of economic blindness. The article seems to think that the big innovations they're talking about are "renting clothes by the day," or "everyone uses driverless cars," but in reality the innovation is in how the economy doesn't need money to function.
Like, I get that this is a post-automation utopia, but at no point in history has capitalist automation ever meant that people need to do less work. It has always meant that people lose their income and go hungry. "We created a society which encourages people to innovate & pitch in without punishing them when they don't work" is, sociologically speaking, a much more interesting and important development than "the algorithm recommends me clothes in the morning."
The most interesting thing is that the author seems not to realize that this all entails an end to capitalism. They say things like "my living room is used for business meetings when I'm not there," but what business meetings? How is anyone making money in a society where everything's free? If no one's making money, is it even a business? Does everyone do it purely out of passion? Or do we needed some form of soft incentive for people to be involved in the economy? What form would that take?
This article raises a million interesting questions, but seems interested only in entertaining the most boring ones, like "how would algorithms be involved with this?" and "what if I had no privacy?"
It's as if they picture every business being like Gmail, where it's free because that's in the interest of the service provider. But Google still needs to turn a profit from somewhere. It' can't be Gmails all the way down. He's trying to propose communism, but imagining that that would merely entail businesses gradually reducing all their prices down to zero for some unexplained reason.