I did. He literally does not answer the question. He "considers" it, as you said, and then moves on. Here's the context of the quote you posted earlier:

Would the market for organic food be the behemoth that it is if the choice of label had been something like "synthetic pesticide-free"?⁷ Admittedly it's not a kale-to-kale comparison, but I hope the point is clear. Why mention AI if the point is avoidance of AI?

He asks a question, then says "I hope the point is clear" without saying what the point is, and then asks another question. He then naively follows-up that nonsense with:

These AI-focused terms do bring the advantage that they are instantly understood, but look how quickly "slop," "6-7," and "enshittification" were able to enter the lexicon.

Those entered the lexicon because they're fucking words. They are sounds and arrangements of letters tied to concepts that we know and understand. You don't have to read an entire website to understand what "enshittification" means, as it's made up of words you already know. "zuzai" has no such connection because some guy just made it up. That's precisely why "no AI" and "AI-free" are the better options, because it uses words you already know.

At this point, I question whether or not you've read the thing. Because I don't understand how anybody can read this and think "Yeah this is a good idea" instead of "This is just a bunch of attention-seeking nonsense to boost his LinkedIn following for when he announces his upcoming book".