I sorta assume it's not.
Based on the journalistic style alone? The important indicators point at it being very significant: PNAS published, Blue Brain Project (which is a serious effort I've semi-followed for a long time), the direct quote from the PI ("This is a major breakthrough ...")
That is the place we'd expect such breakthroughs to originate from, it's already been peer-reviewed, why so skeptical?
Personally, I would assume that it would be quite difficult for a random distribution of neurons to form the exact same network of synapses 85% of the time. Two random graphs with the same number of vertices have a very low probability of being isomorphic, but the spanning trees of those random graphs would have a trivial isomorphism and I assume neural networks formed by synapses randomly bumping into each other are more like the union of a few random spanning trees (lots of local connections, fewer long ones) than fully random graphs. Still, it's proba...
From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120917152043.htm
Could this be a tiny step towards an AGI?