I don't remember screaming anything, I tried to keep this conversation polite.
My fraud remark was about running undisclosed bots, which was what the original poster I replied to insinuated.
As for newcomer companies, I can see how having AI for players to play with will alleviate the problem of empty tables, but I also see how it would cause other problems. In no particular order:
Even assuming that everything is straight, level and upfront, it still creates the perception of a conflict of interests. After all, poker is played for money and now the house is perceived to have a stake in the game.
This will likely be disallowed by regulatory bodies, as it blurs the line between player vs player games and casino-style games. Regulators are a pain to deal with.
As I said, poker is played for money (I will address the play money case later), and arguably one of top (if not the top) players' goal is to win money. If the bots play too well, nobody would want to play them; if they play too badly, people will always try to play only against them.
In the case of play-money games, the reasons outlined above may not hold, but I fail to see the incentive of using such AIs in this case. Even the educational value is low since such AIs play very differently from humans (as per the article).
Now, there may be something I am missing in the picture, and you are more than welcome to point out any errors in my reasoning, but I suspect that without any hard data this will remain an academic argument.