4 ms·
>For people in agreement with Vivaldi, how are you summarizing articles today? I fucking read, like absolutely everyone and their dog did two years ago before
by LM358 2y ago
>For people in agreement with Vivaldi, how are you summarizing articles today?
I fucking read, like absolutely everyone and their dog did two years ago before this pest stole everyone's attention.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pverghese 2y agoWith summarization, you still read, but have to read less. These days a lot of articles have a lot of verbose content, just to keep a person on the page for a long time. Reminds me of students writing essays just to get to a word or page count.
- philipwhiuk 2y ago> With summarization, you still read, but have to read less. Sure, and 10% of the time you get something that's lies which you don't get from actual reading.
- sussmannbaka 2y agoThese articles provide a better summary than the LLM ever could: they are not worth reading in the first place.
- Ukv 2y agoFor fictional/narrative content, sure; reading the Cliff notes version is missing out on the full experience. But for a lot of non-fiction content, I think it's perfectly legitimate and common to have some specific piece of information you're looking to extract, or want a rundown of key highlights. For both, I'd say it could also help in choosing which content to read. Books already typically have a form of summary on the back. If you're researching something, you're going to have to determine which articles are relevant before reading every article top to bottom - and a summary seems helpful for that.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- KoolKat23 2y agoTo be fair most people don't read it, they read the headline and move on, the oft heavily editorialized clickbait headline. At least there's some semblance of neutrality, on the assumption that the article is correct and the LLM correctly summarizes it.