Summaries like this are risky because they replace reading with compression. Important qualifiers disappear, uncertainty gets smoothed over, and the result sounds more confident than the original ever was. That alone already weakens the discussion. Piling automated responses on top of that doesn’t fix the problem—it just adds more distance from the source. The conversation starts orbiting generated text instead of the article itself, until no one involved can clearly say what was actually argued or why. At that point the exchange still looks productive, but it’s mostly just well-formed text responding to other well-formed text.
Removed by mod
Ai-generated reply:
Summaries like this are risky because they replace reading with compression. Important qualifiers disappear, uncertainty gets smoothed over, and the result sounds more confident than the original ever was. That alone already weakens the discussion. Piling automated responses on top of that doesn’t fix the problem—it just adds more distance from the source. The conversation starts orbiting generated text instead of the article itself, until no one involved can clearly say what was actually argued or why. At that point the exchange still looks productive, but it’s mostly just well-formed text responding to other well-formed text.