But how would you use it to support an argument? This seems to cover a lot of ground.
I’d argue it would be bad to quote it either way; if you have doubled checked the evidence against some other source just quote the other source.
But does it need to be posted on the forums? If anyone is in need of a summary they can easily get it themselves. Not allowing these posts dosn’t have much of an impact on those who want one.
With conversations between humans the question of accurately representing another user may arise. When I see the AI summaries brought out, instead of helping to resolve that question, the question of whether or not the AI itself is making mistakes and misrepresenting someone arises.
Look at your recent use of a summary in the thread Do we really need a chess.com for Go? It didn’t really help the conversation, instead it started conversations about the reliability of the AI:
Additionally, it didn’t really help your argument at all. In the thread you said “this thread is all about how it’s a nefarious scheme to crush OGS and force players to scroll through ads before they can play their next move”. You used an AI summary to back this up because people questioned how true this statement was:
But, as some users have asked, how can we trust the AI? As you said above, the basis for trusting it is that it aligns with your own personal assessment of the thread. So your own personal assesment of the thread is supported by the AI, and the AI’s claims were trustworthy because they aligned with your own personal assessment. This is circular.
I point this out because this is an example of exactly why we shouldn’t allow AI summary posts. Your point ended up being circular, cut out the middle man and you could have done the same thing AI free. With AI the point you made was no better, nor no worse, than if you hadn’t used it at all. In that sense it was superfluous, but worse it started this whole side discussion about the trustworthiness of AI.
This is the kind of thing we are going to deal with if we allow AI summaries to be posted. We will keep having discussions about whether or not someone is being misrepresented or some other factual claim is right or wrong. We may already have this issue with other humans, but this kind of use just exacerbates the issue. Instead of arguing that a human is misrepresenting the situation, we’ll have arguments about whether a human is misrepresenting the situation AND arguments about whether the AI is as well.