New York Times gift articles

I wouldn't recommend the read.

The writer seems to want to come across as hesitantly drawn in, but ultimately seeking more. What it actually comes across as is a bit of a glaze tempered by a writer who knows what they're doing. It feels like a testament to their ability and makes it clear how/why they profile celebrities for a living.

She mentions the AI had a visual glitch of an inflating head which makes her seem like an impartial reporter, only to bring attention to how that was fixed within a day. Maybe I'm not accustomed to someone being so forgiving with AI, and I'm not familiar with celeb profiles in general, but this gives "apolitical" vibes. She ends it with a little tribute to art from real people, but the interview basically skirts around this even though the creator is there the whole time also involved in the interview.

I can't copy/paste off the site, but there are occasions where the AI provides a response that doesn't really make sense but the writer refers to like it does. I'm struggling to identify if this is a covert dig at the AIs ability to understand context, if I am not understanding, or the writer is not communicating well.

All in all it's a well written piece with nothing to say and likely only serves to get the name circulating. Not quite a fluff piece, but it's what I imagine a smart writer would suggest as a fluff piece.