Just noting that I have deleted a comment whose entire content was “I dropped this into an AI and it gave me the following summary.”
The text of this essay is public, and the public will do with it what they will; I’m aware of (and somewhere between “resigned to” and “content about”) the fact that a certain kind of reader is impatient, and instead of choosing between “read it, and get the value” and “don’t read it, and preserve my time/attention for other things” tries to shoot for the fabricated third option of “don’t spend the time but somehow get the value anyway” via things like AI summary. It’s fine for individuals to choose to make that mistake.
However, I’m not willing to let the … tick? … of an AI summary (that does in fact fail to convey the thing while giving the false impression of conveying the thing) to just live parasitically right here attached to the body of the essay. It’s misleading in the sense that the-thing-that-happens-to-you-when-you-spend-time-in-a-gestalt can’t in fact be captured and conveyed by the skeleton outline.
(There are some places where all you need is the skeleton outline; I’m not anti-distillation or anti-summary in a general sense. And again, individuals are free to consume AI summaries both when it’s a good idea and when it’s not; I’m not a cop. I’m just not going to signal-boost those myself, nor allow them to piggyback.)
(Deleting such a comment seems totally fine to me. The person might well have been trying to be helpful, but language-model slop is sprouting everywhere and I think treating it as default-spam is a perfectly respectable position.)
Just noting that I have deleted a comment whose entire content was “I dropped this into an AI and it gave me the following summary.”
The text of this essay is public, and the public will do with it what they will; I’m aware of (and somewhere between “resigned to” and “content about”) the fact that a certain kind of reader is impatient, and instead of choosing between “read it, and get the value” and “don’t read it, and preserve my time/attention for other things” tries to shoot for the fabricated third option of “don’t spend the time but somehow get the value anyway” via things like AI summary. It’s fine for individuals to choose to make that mistake.
However, I’m not willing to let the … tick? … of an AI summary (that does in fact fail to convey the thing while giving the false impression of conveying the thing) to just live parasitically right here attached to the body of the essay. It’s misleading in the sense that the-thing-that-happens-to-you-when-you-spend-time-in-a-gestalt can’t in fact be captured and conveyed by the skeleton outline.
(There are some places where all you need is the skeleton outline; I’m not anti-distillation or anti-summary in a general sense. And again, individuals are free to consume AI summaries both when it’s a good idea and when it’s not; I’m not a cop. I’m just not going to signal-boost those myself, nor allow them to piggyback.)
(Deleting such a comment seems totally fine to me. The person might well have been trying to be helpful, but language-model slop is sprouting everywhere and I think treating it as default-spam is a perfectly respectable position.)