> I am super in favor of automating the step that nobody wants to write, nobody wants to read, and no journal will accept without its presence. You make a good

> I am super in favor of automating the step that nobody wants to write, nobody wants to read, and no journal will accept without its presence. You make a good point. Maybe the bits that can be automated are the zero-value bits, and therefore the best conclusion would be to get rid of them? In other words, if it can be automated, it's not real content. I'd be wary of people writing summaries or conclusions using ChatGPT though, because ChatGPT can write very convincing crap that completely misses the point. Someone who is careless enough to forget removing the "Regenerate response" part of the output may be as careless reviewing whether the conclusion truly says what they meant it to say. As an aside, I've asked ChatGPT 3.5 to provide interpretations of works of fiction of which I know the most common ones (e.g. "this is a parable about [...]", "this is a warning against authoritarianism", etc), and ChatGPT sometimes comes up with stuff that completely misses the point; but if you aren't familiar with the work (haven't read it except for a summary) you could mistake it for a valid interpretation!