I'm back on the why isn't it the case that good writing is summary-proof thing:
Here's a lament from the humanities about how the AI people just don't get it. Human intelligence is extravagant, it's contemplative. It's so much more than compression.
I'm not too sympathetic to such moaning. Probably the differences between Nicholas Carr and the technologists he names in this piece amounts to different angel head counts from the same pinhead.
Of how we are coming to treat summaries, Carr says
They aren’t navigational aids. They’re substitutes. The machine-generated summary takes the place of the human-written work. The gist becomes the end product.
I think this is largely true: most of us will come to the ignominious end of being expert summary readers, if only because there are so very many interesting things being written and the shell collectors in our stone age brains won't be able to resist adding shiny new ideas to our stashpile -- though they remain largely unexamined. Do summarizers hold the power in such a situation?
None of this would matter much if we had not adopted computer systems as the fundamental conduit of thought and culture.
Certainly the conduits of thought have more power over us than we remain cognizant of.