Most people do not read the article link that’s posted. So I put an AI summary of the link as a comment, but as a spoiler so if you don’t want to engage with it you don’t have to and also the full article so people can more accessibly read the article. Also as a spoiler so it doesn’t take up a full page of a comment. It got removed by a mod as AI slop.
I could use AI on a headline and you would never know the difference. I could just say it’s my own summary also probably wouldn’t know the difference. Punishing people for being transparent about using LLMs who are not forcing the reader to engage with them is a net positive and a good practice to teach. The opposite is people still use them and just pretend they aren’t.
You are just wasting your time. The only person who thinks it’s a good idea is you. Nobody else here thinks it’s a good idea. At this point, your options are to either revisit using AI to write summaries or do it anyways but not say so.
It would be better if you didn’t claim to speak for everyone, but yet you continue.
By “here,” I mean this entire post that only you the OP think is a good idea. Or is there any comment that I missed?
People who think using AI for article summaries is good:
You
People who think using AI for article summaries is trash:
WhyEssEff
sgtlion (sgtlion only said AI is good for coding and debugging and said that AI is 90% slop)
DoiDoi
MiraculousMM
RotundLadSloopUnion
Leon_Grotsky
imogen_underscore
Infamousblt
blunder
Me
People who are asking clarifying questions:
glans
People who are shitposting:
Lemmygradwontallowme
Do you dispute with how I’m characterizing their opinion on using AI for article summaries?