[Etheryte]

I think commenting short summaries like this is not beneficial on HN. It destroys all nuance, squashes depth out of the discussion, and invites people to comment solely on the subtitles of a full article. That's not the kind of discussion I would like HN to degrade into — if I wanted that, I'd go to Buzzfeed. Instead I hope everyone takes the time to read the article, or at least some of the article, before commenting. Short tldrs don't facilitate that.

[smokel]

As much as I agree with this, I must admit that it did trigger me to read the actual article :)

I assume that in a not-so-distant future, we get AI powered summaries of the target page for free, similar to how Wikipedia shows a preview of the target page when hovering over a link.

[chuckadams]

One one hand I agree, on the other is that the article itself is pretty much a bunch of grumpy and insubstantial hot takes …

[arcbyte]

While i agree with all the potential downsides you mentioned, i still lean heavily on the side of short summaries being extremely helpful.

This was an interesting title, but having seen the summary and discussion, im not particularñy keen to read it. In fact i would never have commented on this post except to reputation yours.

[omoikane]

Looks like lsb was the one who submitted the article, and this comment appears to be submitted at the same time (based on same timestamp and consecutive id in the URL), possibly to encourage people to read the article in case if the title sounded like clickbait.