To me this looks like a superfluous layer of indirection that causes you to have to manage your object method calls through an "interactor" instead of the object itself. That's just breaking the encapsulation pattern of OOP and I imagine this is nightmarish in terms of its impact on reusability of your code.
did I get it wrong or is this actually just a huge anti-pattern?
When this happens, you can either have model objects that know too much about their surrounding environment, or you can put the code somewhere else.
In Rails, that "somewhere else" is usually a controller. But that's messy because now your application's logic is spread between a controller and multiple model objects.
Interactors are a way to clean that up. It allows you to put all of the code to accomplish a use case into one well-named place.
Good programming is about managing complexity. In practice, interactors have served us very well in managing complexity.
(Note: I work on the same code-base as the author of the article.)
e.g. CommentMixin would be an abstract controller class that is included in any controller that has an object that can be commented on.
Interactors let models handle only what they need to know, and help minimize the coupling between these models. Trying to follow how a feature is implemented in a "typical Rails app" can be a nightmare of View -> Controller -> Model -> lib -> Model -> etc. With this pattern, as long as the interactors are well named, an entire feature can be encapsulated in one object.
http://geekswithblogs.net/subodhnpushpak/archive/2009/09/18/...
When you even think you might need to use Inter actors, it's time to roll onto a better and maybe newer platform, as it's downhill all way from now on.