In the Suzuki thread, if I was able to learn from that position at all by using KataGo, it's that again and again, AI is looking for sente because with every local move, temperature may suddenly drop, or otherwise stated, chances for temperature to drop are higher than to rise, so you should always be on the lookout for sente. That matters more than the actual local result.
I don't use AI or look at AI-AI games, though I do look at lots of games by pros who are following AI. That probably gives me a skewed version of what is going on in the AI 'mind', though I do think it's easier for us amateurs to learn from such pros than from AI direct.
However, reality is that my go environment is also heavily affected by western trains of thought, notably what I read here. Yet I often feel a strong disconnect between that and what Japanese pros say. Sente is one of the main areas of polarisation.
I imagine western go players include many chess or ex-chess players and so we are influenced by chess thinking and chess terms. As such, we take very much to heart Bronstein's famous dictum "The most powerful weapon in chess is to have the next move.” Add to that the fact that westerners adore the lilt of the word sente, we end up using it far, far more than you ever see it in Japanese (or Chinese) texts. In fact, we use it as a kind of portmanteau word, blending two or three meanings that are usually differentiated in the oriental languages. That, I think, makes it difficult for us to have conversations in terms such as your quote above. (That's leaving aside losing people like me once you start talking about temperature
)
My instinct ("trained" by seeing other relevant and very common words such as ichidanraku in Japanese) is to make a firm distinction between having the next move, having a forcing move and having the initiative. Having the next move means
at most controlling the next move. Having the initiative means controlling the game. Controlling the game means you often don't need to worry about having next move.
The concept is not at all strange to us - we have just chosen, perhaps for historical reasons as well as chess influence, to ignore it in go.
To give an example from western sport, NFL football shows it most starkly. One side is literally given the ball to make the next move. After they have their turn, the ball is given to the other side. They then have the next move. It is such a stark turnaround that different squads of players are brought on (defense and offense) in each phase. In the early part of the game, each side is trying to score or to prevent the other side from scoring. But as the game proceeds, one side may pull ahead with touchdowns and so have a lead. They then have the initiative in the game.
Imagine a situation where the Patriots are leading 45-3 with two minutes left on the clock. The Jets have the ball. They have the next move. The Patriots have the initiative. They can just let the clock run down.
But that matters a lot more than being a more description. Imagine a similar situation but with the score at 21-14 in favour of the Patriots. The Jets have the ball and so can still tie the game with a converted touchdown, but they have no timeouts. The Patriots have the initiative (the lead), but more than that they even
control the next move - they don't have it but they control it. That's because the Jets, with no timeouts to stop the clock, have to choose plays that end up running out of bounds (that stops the clock), and they can't make do with a field goal. They are effectively playing under a handicap. They control the ball but not the game.
It is my belief that AI bots (or at least pros who follow bots) play to have the initiative, and don't really care who has next move. They want sente = control, not sente = next move. Control in go is probably definable not as
who has next move, but
where the next move will be played, by either side. Until we unravel that distinction in English, I don't think we will make much progress in fathoming what AI is up to, but I'm even more certain that we won't be fully in synch with what oriental pros are saying about the topic.
invades black's area, threatening to link up with a or escape around b.
defends against both threats. Even linking-up underneath with a is not working anymore:
for 
looks like a really bad exchange. I find it very hard to imagine any sequence that could work better with