It sounds good on principle that the human brain may still be evolving, but it's not an unmitigated blessing.

If it's a matter of brain size, as the article suggests, that's bad news for our womenfolk. The size of an infant human's skull is already pushing the limit of what's anatomically possible. If we accommodate a further increase in skull size through artificial means, then humanity could someday find itself unable to reproduce "in the wild", and that's not a good thing.

Something did happen around 50-60,000 years ago, but I don't think it was an increase in brain size, but rather quality of brain functioning. A couple of million years ago there was a dramatic increase in brain size, more than doubling from an average of 700cc to 1500-1700 cc. Since then, the capacity of the human skull has not noticeably increased.

Richard Dawkins' take on what happend two million years ago is that it was the result of sexual selection rather than general environmental selection. He theorizes that protohuman females started to select their mates based on criteria such as an ability to hunt, to create simple tools and ornaments, and to make the vocalizations that eventually evolved into a facility for speech. Those tendencies were only slightly in evidence at the time, which testifies to the power of sexual selection to magnify minor differences over a short time scale.

In other words, we owe it all to the women.

As for what happened 50-60,000 years ago, cause and effect is debatable. I tend to favor the belief that it was a matter of a changing environment at the end of a long ice age, rather than any change in the human brain. The Fertile Crescent blossomed, and provided an environment that unleashed the potential of our bigger brains. Hunter-gatherers had a relatively easy life there from the start, which gave them the food surpluses and free time to begin to settle down, which led to the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago. There's no doubt that feedback effects made qualitative improvements in our brains through selection based on better diet and consequent reproductive success, but on balance those changes were an effect rather than a cause.

So I believe, anyway.