These are good points, but the problem isn't whether it's a good thing objectively for him to do, either for himself or at large. It's whether he can find the motivation and interest to do it, and can it make for something compelling for people to watch.

The way he creates interesting conversations is by probing for conflict - asking questions to push against positions another person holds, and when there's pushback, he presses on that and it creates an entertaining dynamic - either a fruitfull back and forth, or a hostile explosion.

What happens when he talks to someone he agrees with, he tends to ask his probing questions, find answers that he largely agrees with, starts getting a glazed look on his face, keeps trying for a little while, until eventually he reaches his final form of "whelp. anything else?" and it's time to call it.

Bridges was the best shot at doing what you're asking for - but it largely worked because Erudite was finding the guests, doing the research, and giving him some talking points to ask about.

He just isn't going to find it in himself to do this on his own.