Google Chrome Will Summarize Entire Articles For You With Built-in … – Slashdot

Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
Nickname:
Password:
Nickname:
Password:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The particularly amusing part about it is they will do all that work for something that will turn out crap, because you cannot trust GenAI to have not missed something important in its summary or that it has not hallucinated something in it, so if the article is important to you you’ll have to read it yourself — with even more mental effort than before knowing you’ve been primed with potential BS.
> Re: Google: “Wait for the more trusted, stable company [us] to do it.”
Two lies in one. Three, if they don’t succeed (“do”).
Google once embarrassingly mixed my personal info up with my work info in their mad push to beat Facebook a while back. They decided to auto-merge accounts having the same email address as part of their one-big-app-suite plan. Auto-merge = auto-mess. When the suits are pressured to “git it done”, they ride roughshod over users, and I expect this AI Space Race to be similar to their
Companies ruined by Brahmin from India https://archive.is/tqcV0 [archive.is]
Won’t that put slashdot editors out of work though?
Maybe. AI is notoriously bad at summarizing, so it should have no trouble producing misleading headlines and headlines that don’t match either the article or summary and summaries that misrepresent the article most of time.
I’d say it was all over for Slashdot editors, but AI is unreasonably good at producing grammatically correct text consistently. That single flaw might just be enough to save their jobs.
You are 100 years old and yet you talk nonsense.
Thank You, kind human!
If they can fact-check summaries automatically, they’ll have solved some of the core problems of artificial general intelligence.
Nobody pretended the summaries are unbiased.
….when we get the floaty self-powered chairs from Wall-E, does the sippy cup come with it or do you have to buy that separately?
That whole “stealing news” has been debunked years ago.
Linking and taking a summary sentence is fair use.
The editors wanted to get compensated, then backpedaled when they were simply replaced by their competitors in the listings.
“Author” has one short sentence of material, uses generative AI to make clickbait friendly article mindlessly verbose and meandering.
Browser has AI to get back to that original sentence.
Thanks!
>> “Author” has one short sentence of material
I think it’s the reverse :
“AI is short of authors, and just spits out BS instead”
All I get when I search Google is SEO garbage results.
And companies pay for that shit…
Who needs nuance when you can reduce everything down to simple summary?
Oh Goody.
Now instead of having Google just offering me pages of stuff *almost* completely unrelated to my search, they’ll also offer me summaries *almost* completely unrelated to the article?
I’m sure that will make my life SO much better! /sarcasm
Hmm, actually, maybe it will. It’ll finally push Google into being completely useless, and force me to learn the advanced-search incantations for DuckDuckGo or someone else. As it is, I use them first, and then copy the exact same search into Google on the occasions when the others can’t find anything relevant. But that’s been getting increasingly ineffective anyway, so back to the good old days of search-engine incantations being necessary to find anything useful.
Isn’t that what the headline does anyway? (or is supposed to do?)
Why would the people who never read beyond the headline bother to read the summary?
Kind of agree, well not the headline that is just to draw you in. However a well written article should have a summary at the top and get into the detail later. Like any good paper should have document should have some type of summary. The only types of writing that shouldn’t have a summary section I can think of is fiction, where it would give away the story.
I find it funny how writing is getting worse and now we need AI fix a problem that doesn’t need to be there in the first place. AI doesn’t fix it anyw

Why would the people who never read beyond the headline bother to read the summary?
Wait, there’s a summary?

Isn’t that what the headline does anyway? (or is supposed to do?)
Why would the people who never read beyond the headline bother to read the summary?
Evidence: slashdot.
people will be even less capable of critical reading and thinking
don’t think it’s a win to write for AI to read rather than other humans
If articles can be summarized, why do articles exist?
You must have the attention span of a fly.
Ohhhhhh…..
Ummmm….
Nevermind…..

If articles can be summarized, why do articles exist?
A summary presents the conclusions of the article, the article provides the detail, the methodology, how conclusions were reached.

It used to be common to summarise articles, news and technical because you wanted to get the readers attention to get them to commit the time to read the article.

If articles can be summarized, why do articles exist?
A summary presents the conclusions of the article, the article provides the detail, the methodology, how conclusions were reached. It used to be common to summarise articles, news and technical because you wanted to get the readers attention to get them to commit the time to read the article.
Also, it used to be proper in in journalistic writing to make the first 2-3 paragraphs of the essentially a summary, followed by successively-expanding levels of detail and background, so that readers can read the level of detail they’re interested in, then stop.
The web seems to have made a lot of writers forget this, instead preferring a clickbait headline to draw you in, posing questions but carefully not answering them, then making you wade through endless background and detail before you get to the ke
Note, I haven’t read the whole article, but I can tell you it is a dumb idea. We already have disinformation campaigns based on headline-reading. For example Alex Jones loves to prove his point by just rattling off headlines of articles without even bothering with context or what the article actually says. Take for example the article “scientists say new galaxy is 1 billion light years away” .. he would say some BS about “how can they possibly know that, there is no way to tell how f
>> Note, I haven’t read the whole article, but I can tell you it is a dumb idea.
You are completely right, it is a dumb idea to not read the article 🙂
That’s the whole point here.
Summaries are useless, so they may also be written by any BS AI…
Rinse and repeat to get even cleaner results.
What can go wrong ?
Now that would be a usefull feature so that I can spend more time reading all the contributions.
I fail to see how this could be useful. 75% of the time, what I think is important in an article is not what the reporter thinks is important, and surely will be left out when an AI or human idiot summarizes it. Sometimes, the most important thing in an article is the information *they judiciously left out*.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Xbox Introduces New Strike System To Curtail Bad Behavior
Shortage of Experts and Low Pay ‘Major Barriers To UK’s Net Zero Future’
Mater artium necessitas. [Necessity is the mother of invention].

source