It is important to note that there is a hidden agenda in this essay: Sabine is a superdeterminist, and so her presentations have to be viewed through that lens. As a superdeterminist, she is committed to idea that classical reality is "actually real" (for some value of "actually real" -- see below). And so Hyperion's chaotic behavior is actually real, and QM cannot account for that. All of which is true.

But there is an alternative view of classical reality which is that it is not "actually real" (the scare quotes are important here), that it is all just a sort of shared illusion among sentient beings. And QM can account for that, i.e. the math of QM can (and does) describe a set of mutually entangled observers all of which agree on an observation, notwithstanding that the observation has not actual referent in the model. And that is actually what we observe. We do not directly observe Hyperion. What we observe is our own subjective perception of seeing Hyperion, and having everyone around us report their own subjective perception of seeing Hyperion. The "actual existence" of a classical entity, i.e. an actual physical referent for "Hyperion" seems like a plausible explanation for this, but what QM tells us is that this explanation is wrong. But Sabine, as a committed superdeterminist, rejects this idea. But she's not being up-front about that.

The problem with QM is not chaos, it is the fact that it is incompatible with classical intuition. The chaos thing just brings this incompatibility into very sharp focus.