The model does show that you can recreate Newtonian gravity from the physics of Entropy on the holographic boundary maximizing, but Newtonian gravity isn't our current model of gravity. So there's that.

If the model could recreate the observed consequences of Einstein's description of gravity, then I'd be more interested.

I'm not really comfortable with the phrase "Entropic Force" because the forces involved do not come "from" Entropy considerations, they come from other descriptions. Much like centrifugal force doesn't come "from" any physical interactions, but from rotation between system and observer. It's fine to talk about centrifugal force in a rotating frame of reference, because in that frame, there is an observed tendency of things to be pushed "outward." However, there is no "real" mechanism for centrifugal force. It's simply Newton's 1st Law acting on straight line motions in a rotating frame. Since there is no physical interaction that accounts for centrifugal force, and that force is absent in non-rotating frames, physicists tend to call it a "fictitious force" or "illusory force." I.e. it's not really there, but an artifact of the way a system is being observed.

BUT if you are willing to hold all of that in your mind, then talking about centrifugal forces in rotating frames is fine. If you google a picture of Lagrange Points, it's almost always shown in a rotating frame.



OK, so sometimes a description is "good" because it caters to our human perceptions, even when it's not a "good" description of physics.
In his example of the molecule being stretched out or coiled up, it's not some mysterious Entropy force that pushes the molecule, it's the molecule's internal bonds and the external air molecules bumping into it. Accounting for all those forces describes the behavior. There's no "missing" force we need to explain with entropy. Much like in the rotating frame, there's no "missing" force that pushes things outward, it's just their straight line inertial movement in a rotating frame.

OK, with all that as preamble, the equivalence of the force of gravity with an Entropic increase is fine. As long as 2 descriptions are mathematically equivalent, they are identical. The universe doesn't care what humans know of math or what particular description humans find more comfortable. Equal means equal.
If there is an equivalent description of gravity from Entropy, then great. But merely showing you can recreate Newton's Laws is not the trick. We already know Newton's laws are a crude approximation of Einstein's laws. We can only assume Einstein's laws will someday be shown to be a crude approximation of something deeper. Showing you can get to Newton is fine, and perhaps encouraging that a deeper link could be made between Entropy and Einstein's curved space-time, but the deeper link is still not shown.