I agree mystification of computation is not something we should encourage, but I don't think that's really what is happening in this article. The things that computers do today are not utterly trivial, the algorithms are getting more complex every day and there is some evidence that some of the very complex probabilistic structures being built have corollaries in the human brain.
We have already passed the point where all computers are being directly programmed by a human being to perform an exact task. Things like google, and Wolfram Alpha and Netflix are following instructions designed by humans that describe complex behaviors and even reasoning, not the particular outcomes they yield. These instructions are far beyond listing steps for a robot to pick up a cup off a table.
Are the machines being creative? No. But, how would we know if they were, we don't even know what that means.
Are they 'in control'? No. No more than your bicycle is in control when you stop pedaling and take your hands off the handle bars. It has no will, it just keep going, just like google's servers. But, do we know enough about what intelligence (or sentience, which is what everyone is actually talking about here) is in order to answer that question if the answer ever changes?
How complex does something have to be in order for us to consider it 'intelligent' and what kind of complexity will it need to have?