Are you sure? The entire post treats the event incredulously. I can’t pick out a single line that affords the issue with the level of consideration that the GP comment does.

The two reasons I believe you may be referring to from above are:

1) "learning how it fails" 2) "to generate some potentially viral content for investor relationship."

The whole of Ploum’s argument may be summarized in his own words as:

> But what appears to be journalism is, in fact, pure advertising. [...] What this video is really doing is normalising the fact that “even if it is completely stupid, AI will be everywhere, get used to it!” [...] So the whole thing is advertising a world where chatbots will be everywhere and where world-class workers will do long queue just to get a free soda. And the best advice about it is that you should probably prepare for that world.

I hate to be pedantic...but my growing disdain for modern blog posts compels me to do so in defense of literacy and clear arguments.

Whether the GP and the author offer the “exact same two reasons” is a matter of interpretation that becomes the duty of readers like us to figure out.

If we take Ploum’s words at their face...the most he does is presuppose (and I hope I’m using that word correctly) that the reader is already keen on the two reasons that `TrainedMonkey makes explicit and like the author, finds them to be stupid. While he does say that the video is not journalism and that it is advertising and that the video does show how the AI failed at the task it was assigned he does not give any credence as to why this is the case from a position other than his own.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the concept of a “charitable interpretation” too. But I don’t think that there is one present in this post that we’re responding to. `TrainedMonkey’s comment leads off by telling us that this is what (I think) he’s about to offer in the remarks that follow when he says “there are obvious and good reasons for running that experiment”.

So my gripe is that you’re making it sound like there’s a clear counterargument entertained in this post when there isn’t. Because you overstated your interpretation of the GP comment in what looks like an attempt to make Ploum’s argument appear more appealing than it ought to be. Even though both `TrainedMonkey and myself have expressed agreement with the point he’s trying to make in general, perhaps we’re less inclined toward pugnaciousness without a well thought out warrant.