This is not what the article claims to show. It shows that the system bitcoin is turing complete.
Added to this, having an "external driver" and the system being turing-complete are not mutually exclusive.
In many cases, they are. For instance, if you tack on an already-Turing-complete component to the existing "system", then it's disingenuous to call the existing system Turing complete.
Further, this "covenant"-style system isn't really what Turing had in mind when he spoke of an "automatic machine".
Further further, this has nothing to do with Craig Wright, who famously called Script itself Turing complete in a plagiarized paper, and said that the "alt stack" is critical for it to be Turing complete.
Nonsense.
But you can just post it in the comment here, I will see it
> What you can then do instead is, for example, to update the first half of the board in one transaction and then the second half in another transaction, i.e. two transactions are one generation
Yes, we just need to add the external "driver" that partitions the board, determines the bounds of board parts, constructs transactions that do all the necessary work of updating the board, checks whether the computation is finished - in other words, does the hard work of partitioning the computation in the chunks of fixed predetermined size, which is only necessary because bitcoin script is not turing-complete.