Here is, to me, the relevant line: "Hubert Dreyfus, who argued that computers, who have no body, no childhood and no cultural practice, could not acquire intelligence at all. One of Dreyfus’ main arguments was that human knowledge is partly tacit, and therefore cannot be articulated and incorporated in a computer program. " I have not read the rest of the article but in the introduction it's stated: "The article furt…
The author of the article specifically says this: I have earlier said that neural networks need not be programmed, and therefore can handle tacit knowledge. Also you are misunderstanding what tacit means. It doesn't mean anything mystical - merely that it is gained from observations rather than logically reasoning about something.
"The article further argues that ... computers are not in the world."
The specific quote you mention is in a larger paragraph which says:
"Computers are not in our world. I have earlier said that neural networks need not be programmed, and therefore can handle tacit knowledge. However, it is simply not true, as some of the advocates of Big Data argue, that the data “speak for themselves”. Normally, the data used are related to one or more models, they are selected by humans, and in the end they consist of numbers."
My reading of this is that "tacit" is used as a kind of dog whistle to dualists. It's ambiguous enough so that the author can claim they meant "learned" while still suggesting an underlying dualism.
Regardless of the meaning of "tacit" in this context, the author pretty much flat out says they're a dualist by repeatedly claiming "computers are not in our world" and "in the end they consist of numbers".
I think you're giving the author too much credibility that they aren't making a plea to mysticism.