The interesting thing is that the author of the paper you linked is currently reviewing the paper, or was at the time of writing: >> New research by Luis Pilot

The interesting thing is that the author of the paper you linked is currently reviewing the paper, or was at the time of writing: >> New research by Luis Piloto and colleagues at Princeton University – which I’m reviewing for an article in Nature Human Behaviour – takes a step towards filling this gap. I don't reckon I've seen this kind of article before: "here's some new research I'm reviewing and I think it's rad". That just sounds so... dodgy. You're supposed to maintain at least the facace of being impartial and having some sort of integrity when making reviews, even when reviewing a DeepMind paper for Nature.