This is a pretty apt analogy: why settle for the original article when you can read the outrage infused summary of an opinionated troll in a hurry?

It has little to do with overdesign or load times.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. It's the perfect analogy.

What do HN comments and AI Overviews have in common?

- All information went through a bunch of neurons at least once

- We don't know which information was even considered

- Might be completely false but presented with utmost confidence

- ...?

Contradicting someone describing their own experience based on assumptions and generalizations that may or may not have a basis in reality is pretty arrogant. How are you so confident that you can presume to tell that person what’s going on in their mind?

More generally speaking though, I do agree that comments probably tend to give people more of a dopamine hit than the content itself, especially if it’s long-form. However comments on HN often are quite substantial and of high quality, at least relatively speaking, and the earlier point about reading the articles often being a poor experience has a lot of merit as well. Why can’t it be a combination of all of the above (to various degrees depending on the individual, etc)?

The majority of the linked articles is waaayyyyy too long for what they have to say, and they reveal the subject only many paragraphs in.

From reading one or a few short comments I at least know what the linked article is about, which the original headline often does not reveal (no fault of those authors, their blogs are often specialized and anyone finding the article there has much more context compared to finding the same headline here on a general aggregation site).

The troll gives me the main idea without having to find five tiny x's on the screen like some sadistic minigame then paywall me. I'll take the troll.