[cthor]

> if a summary could fully capture the report, the author wouldn't have written the report, they'd just have written the summary

That is not my experience with corporate writing in the slightest.

[Wowfunhappy]

Yes, but... that's bad corporate writing, right? I suppose you could argue that's the reality for many, but it's not what we should aspire to! The solution isn't to add AI summarizers, it's to stop writing BS!

Easier said than done, I get it. But I'm scared of AI normalizing this. What happens when no one, even the good writers, can write for actual people any more, because everything is uniformly thrown into an AI?

[lmm]

It's already normalised. If companies were capable of rewarding insight rather than volume they'd be doing it already. If anything, normalising the use of AI to reduce a report to its valuable insights should reduce the incentive to pad out reports.

[elcritch]

Or AI tools will be used to pad out the reports making the author look prolific while knowing everyone will summarize the report to important parts.

[lmm]

> Or AI tools will be used to pad out the reports making the author look prolific

But everyone will know everyone can do this. So it will stop impressing anyone, maybe.