[sleton38234234]

There seems to be a knee jerk reaction to react negatively to anyone who doesn't read the article or doesn't read it in depth.

i don't think the comment about TL;DR OR asking chatgpt is completely out of line. I could see businesses being built on top of chatgpt to create summaries of articles on the internet. This is a pretty big use case.

Sometimes, people want a more efficient way to read articles, rather than actually reading them. If a service could be created that summarizes the main point of an article, I think there's value (and a potential business) in it. You might even be able to ask chatgpt or a service on top ofit, "has this article any new conclusions about the state of Mh370?" without actually reading the article.

[outworlder]

> You might even be able to ask chatgpt or a service on top ofit, "has this article any new conclusions about the state of Mh370?" without actually reading the article.

The problem is, if ChatGPT doesn't have the data, it likes to create completely fictional narratives.

[sdk16420]

>Sometimes, people want a more efficient way to read articles, rather than actually reading them.

Is it too much to assume that readers have had at least high school education and know about lead sentences and summary paragraphs?

[sleton38234234]

If AI can create the perfect executive summary, then why not?

A good executive summary is better than just lead sentences.

[lamontcg]

Particularly when over half the article is Atlantic-style lengthy exposition about the history which a lot of us already know, and I don't really care if the author is that good of a writer or not.

[dieselgate]

I agree with you considering parent comment has currently been downvoted. This was one of the most fascinating articles I've read but it was so long I still didn't finish reading the entire thing