Maybe they mean that computers can't replicate the imperfections/shortcomings that might define human/hand shuffling? That's kind of how I took it.
> an algorithm would randomly select an arrangement from the 52! possible decks. But no computer has enough memory to evaluate all of these possibilities
It sounds more like they don't understand how a computer can shuffle something.
But I guess the article’s point is that human imperfections offset that with lower correlated failure modes.