As other people here have said, type systems are merely an automated check that interfaces are used correctly. But to read this more generously, the author is saying that with sufficiently simple interfaces such checking isn't necessary. That's arguably true, though rather limiting (since a direct composition of simple interfaces is not necessarily a simple interface): a system that presents a single call that reads one byte and adds one to it, with wrapping, doesn't need a type because all inputs are valid.
Unfortunately, the examples given are not particularly representative, because they all imply complex interfaces (reading? writing? buffering?) and complex input/output formats: the shell that is doing the piping only cares about ‘bytes’, but the programs themselves have much more complex requirements on the data, which tends to be what happens once you start assigning semantics to your interfaces.
Even with spatial locality limiting the number of inputs and outputs, the ‘interfaces’ that hardware uses are usually specified in multi-hundred-page manuals, and that's mostly due to having to encode the semantics of what it means to put volts on those wires.
replies(1):