Here is where I'd like to push back just a little.

Not all AI prompting is expanding the prompt.

What if the original prompt is 1000 words, includes 10 scientific articles by reference (boosting it up to 10000) , and the AI helps to boil it down to 100 words instead?

I'd argue that this is probably a rather more responsible usage of the tools. And rather more pleasant to read besides.

Whether it meets the criterion is another thing. But at least don't assume that the original prompt is always better or shorter!

▲

wildzzz 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Use your brain and summarize the article yourself if it's of such great importance. Why should I care to read it if you can't be bothered to actually write it?

	▲	Kim_Bruning 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Actually, I'd like to expand a wee bit. Don't know if you've ever done a scientific library usage course or so. It's one of those things you tend to forget are important. One of the most important lessons is not to read as many papers as possible. It's weeding out as many as possible so you can spend your limited grey matter reading the ones that actually matter. And that's where the LLM comes in handy, especially if it's of decent quality. It's a Large Language Model. Chewing through language and finding issues and discrepancies, or simply whether a paper matches your ultimate query is trivial for them .
	▲	zahlman 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Personally, I think it's fine to read an AI summary, go back and verify the parts it's citing, then write your own. It's at least as okay as skimming the original documents and not properly reading them.
	▲	Kim_Bruning 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You know, I probably have standing to argue that people who use the web are just as lazy ;-) I'm just old enough that I was in the middle of the transition from paper (in primary school in the 80s) to online (starting late 90s) I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, but obviously people should drive to 3 different libraries across 3 countries and read the journals in their own binders (in at least 3 different languages) In reality: full-text online is convenient. Having an LLM assist with search and filtering is convenient. I could go back to the old ways. Would you like me to reply in pen? My handwriting is atrocious. I really prefer modern tools, though. Not everything older is better. Whether you want to read what I write is up to you. (edit: Not hyperbole. I live in a small country, and am old enough to still remember the 80's as a kid.)

▲

nitwit005 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Push the idea past a single comment. Someone decides they have a great method for getting summaries, and adds it as a comment to every post they look at. Other people have similar ideas. Is that fine? It doesn't take a lot for the whole site to feel like useless spam.

It'd be far better to just have a thread about the best way to get good summaries.

▲

nunez 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd rather read the 11000 word prompt, in that case. I'd rather not have my text-only feed get the TikTok treatment.

	▲	Kim_Bruning 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Probably not. A typical S/N ratio (rule of thumb) is about 1:10. Sturgeons law (a useful rule of thumb) says "ninety percent of everything is crap." You shouldn't just dump a big pile of slop on someone's plate: the actual trick is to filter it down to the bit that counts. Usually when posting, you should do that for the reader. It's only polite. So, if we filter out the noise, that leaves you with 100 words and 1 link to a reference. Which is actually about right for a typical HN reply. (run this through wc ;-)) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law