Does this article actually say anything? I feel like I could summarise it as "Famous person said <thing>. What does <thing> mean? I'm not really sure. I think they're right and <thing> is going to be big."
(I also wish it said more, but his blog comments tend to have better discussions than even hn, sometimes, so maybe he is just trying to kick that off. I wish it were a better technology for commenting, though.)
Still, the "single-issue commenter", as exemplified by both of them, can be valuable to a good community. @michaelochurch's writings have definitely shaped my thoughts, so kudos for him, and, if I were in the position to use it, @graycat's bibliographies would be rewarding to mine (unless his knowledge is outdated, as @barrkel suggests). Yet I can't help but get the impression that the single-issue commenter is very prone to overexposing themself, especially if a large proportion of their comments are multi-thousand word diatribes that recycle most of the same themes. Not to mention, people readily pattern-match prolix commenters to complete crackpots, even though both those users seem to be above that level. My impression is that single-issue commenters would be best served by posting a lot for a year or so, followed by some time to lie low -- if their contributions to the discussion around their issue are really valuable, their posts should stay in moderate circulation as other users refer to them in later discussion.
Also _not_ clarifying that we are not dealing with any sort of hard AI (which is what the layman understands by AI) is always a bad sign.
All in all just a marketing piece.