I don't think the writer was criticizing neural nets and genetic algorithms as an approach, just observing that what they have produced so far is "decidedly unintelligent".
If something can beat you at chess and jeopardy, it isn't unintelligent.
I don't know, I find these the least appealing of any kinds of test for intelligence. On the fly problem solving? Adaptation to new situations? To me, ravens using simple tools to pick up shiny things seem more intelligent than the kind of machine displayed on Jeopardy or at chess matches.
But "Watson" does not excel at chess, nor "deep blue" in jeopardy