Bear in mind he is an artist, and it's de rigueur to have some story or concept with what you make. I learned this the hard way when I used to do algorithmic art back in college, you can't just say what it is or how you made it.
I came here to say this -- OP seems to be reacting not to the work itself, but to the framing. It reminds me of how my friends used to jump down my throat when I said 'AI' instead of 'Machine Learning' -- they had a point; 'Artificial Intelligence', as a coinage, is tendentiously animistic (just like Jensen's 'new forms of life'.)
Yet, of course, that's exactly how we encounter LLMs! The whole _point_ of ChatGPT isn't to do a "mechanical learning" (whatever that might be,) it's to create an experience that is more reminiscent of talking to another human being. An 'intelligence', if you will, but artificial.
At some point, we will need to tease out why engineering culture is so huffy about articulating its own goals; I have this mental image of a magician standing on stage, berating his audience for ever believing that rabbits could ever be made to come out of hats, all the while collecting a tidy sum for doing just that.
