I almost didn't read the article due to the headline but the fMRI studies (which are really the focus of the article) are fascinating, and there is a surprising

I almost didn't read the article due to the headline but the fMRI studies (which are really the focus of the article) are fascinating, and there is a surprisingly deep discussion about the line between idioms and metaphors -- particularly how this affects whether the brain engages the motor cortex when processing language and how it might vary by individual. Note that the headline isn't actually implying machines can't be intelligent but that their internal states won't correspond to human states unless their cognition is grounded in a similar set of sensations. But this is already the case with humans from vastly different cultural contexts. The words coming out of your mouth only mean the same thing to others to the extent that they share a similar history of experiences when interacting with the world. So I can certainly believe that an AI whose internal concepts are based on embodied/simulated experience would seem more relatable than one raised purely on books, but that's true of humans too so no big surprise and not an insurmountable barrier as one of the quoted sources in the article suggests. Non-embodied agents will speak in idioms and embodied agents will speak in metaphors.