From what I can tell their 'AI' chooses colors, and fonts and does some basic layout. All three bits can be done very simply. So you choose a template, it stores a few basic qualities, then uses those qualities later to choose how to parameterise its tools for adding new content to your site.
It's not strong AI, you might want to claim it isn't AI at all. But even backtracking best-first search qualifies as 80s-era symbolic AI. I don't think you need to have an undergrad CompSci to do that. My AI textbook is used by plenty of non-graduates, I certainly hope it contains enough to implement those kinds of tools without my readers needing advanced degrees or research credentials!
So I found the article overly cynical: I don't think they're claiming it will translate your human language into a site. I didn't get that claim, at least. I interpreted it as them using the inherent magicness of 'artificial intelligence' as a marketing term, confusing together things that their tool will do, with things that the AI code will do.
Overhyped product which is a big UX investment masquerading as technical IP? Definitely! A scam with no intent to deliver? I don't think so.
My first reaction seeing the video a few months ago was 'clever'. Not 'clever' as in 'clever AI or tech', but 'a neat use of very simple AI tools with a UX focus to make blogging / portfolio software a bit more flexible.'
[edit: add last para]