> You can read your messages on Outlook and Teams without having them summarized ... At the cost of 10x in time cost? The argument is against the notion of su

> You can read your messages on Outlook and Teams without having them summarized ... At the cost of 10x in time cost? The argument is against the notion of summary? > ... — and I’d argue that a well-written email is one that doesn’t require a summary. And yet the world's population probably creates loads of important yet not well-written emails. Different contexts will also require different information to be extracted, so no matter how well-written an email is, the context might determine what the relevant information is. > Podcasts are not there "to be chatted about" with an AI. Really? Are written articles not meant to be "spoken aloud"? Are plays not meant to be "turned into a movie"? Who cares cares if someone can get information about media that they want to consume with a new method? > Preparing for meetings isn't something that requires AI, nor is research, unless, of course, you don't really give a shit about the actual content of what you're reading or the message of what you're saying, just that you are "saying the right thing." There was no statement about requiring AI. It was about leveraging AI as a benefit. I use email instead of snail mail. I often watch technical talk videos at 2x speed to shoot past the filler. I read books in digital format instead of their physical counterparts because of convenience and access. I read online newspaper articles, rather than holding a physical newspaper, for the same reason. None of these require technology, they're enhanced by them. What a piece of shit article. I stopped reading after the first paragraph. This should read "The Era of the Technical Moron".