An AI is not to be built like a human being, because it will never be a human being.

I do think there is some potential cross-purpose confusion that can happen here. A commentator on the article makes this point:

We seem to have two completely dissimilar styles of projects which often seem to come under the artificial intelligence heading; one is to get machines and software to do useful or perhaps challenging or perhaps interesting things, whereas the other is to understand how humans do what we do in the way of thinking.

So when we have got a chess playing program that can beat the best human being, we have made some advance in the first project. But we know that the way the program has been set up to analyse the chess game is completely unlike the way that people approach the problem. We have made use of the strengths of the machine, we haven’t emulated a brain.

This why I was careful to include the detail of 'human model of intelligence' in my OP. I understand that as a species we are by no means the ultimate biological entity. But, for example, there are people out there trying to design AIs that create music. Specifically, music that is pleasurable to us as humans and that can pass off as humanly made. Sure, you could hypothetically make an AI with all sorts of qualities and senses that far surpass humans, but the resulting music would be far from human-like. It could even be in a frequency range we can't hear.

But I agree that for the more practical applications of AI (i.e. a system that can do things better than us), making it human-like isn't really the end goal or useful. Rather, like you said, it's about giving the system a way to contextualize itself in the environment, however that may be.

But I do agree that the article itself is lacklustre. I posted it mainly for the titular concept, rather than it's contents.