I thought about why I'd want an AI summary or even a human-made summary of a long text and realized there's a deep wrongness this need stems from..
I like a summary so I can know if I like the article and agree with it. If I would like and agree with the summary (thus reinforcing my worldview) I'll most likely read the whole article. If the summary is uninteresting or does not support my worldview, I'm more likely to skip the article.
And this is the grave problem of the matter. I'm selecting things to read and learn about that I am already familiar with and agree to. That's no way to learn new things and new perspectives. This action repeated over many times over many days and years leads to a person who's very closed minded and starts to think of themselves as the main character of their reality. I'm noticing that in myself and it's really hard not to do.
I can add a use-case for that. I'm trying to read Joe Dispenza "Breaking a Habit of Being Yourself". The book starts with Joe Dispenza views on a quantum nature of our world, and I see that the author knows about quantum even less then me. Moreover he tries to make me to believe in something similar to Philip K. Dick, except everything unexplainable is explained not by references to Holy Spirit, but by slipping a word "quantum" somewhere in a sentence. He kinda believe in a magic world where you can change the world by thinking hard about the desired change, but instead of "magic" he says "quantum". Sometimes he uses word "quantum" twice in one sentence.
It was bad enough so I was fighting my desire to stop reading the book and to never try it again. I persisted because his bullshit was far outside of his supposed area of expertise and I thought he could become better when he gets to a point. But then Dispenza refers to a study showing that you can change past with a prayer: if you pray for a random sample of patients from a decade ago, then this random sample does better than a general population[1]. Then he refers to a study showing that people can unwound DNA by a force of mind[2]. Dispenza starts his book by asking a reader to keep an open mind, but there are limits of mind openness, and if you go beyond the limits then what is the point of having a mind? Am I ready to break a habit of being myself and start believing in bullshit?
After I'd found [1] and [2] with a search engine, I searched for Joe Dispenza. He is not a neuroscientist but a fraud[3]. I think I need to make my fraud detector more sensitive. But the point is: if I had an AI summary, I'd probably never wasted my time trying to read the book. Though I'd better get from an AI not a summary, but a chat, so I could ask questions about the book and get answers (was it a butler who did this? lol).
Btw, reading Philip K. Dick I noticed that I can read through such a concentrated bullshit without fighting an urge to stop wasting my time. I'm still thinking what is the key difference in my attitude to different authors. For now I think it is about my expectations: Philip K. Dick started with a question what is real, and so I'm happy to give him a license to talk some bullshit, while I expect from a scientist to have beliefs compatible with science.
And this is the grave problem of the matter. I'm selecting things to read and learn about that I am already familiar with and agree to. That's no way to learn new things and new perspectives. This action repeated over many times over many days and years leads to a person who's very closed minded and starts to think of themselves as the main character of their reality. I'm noticing that in myself and it's really hard not to do.