What're you talking about? In my experience it does a good enough job of it.
Without getting into the technical weeds, it cannot synthesize novel insight or pull out pertinent points without missing things, a human can. Even with Mixture of Experts, even with retrieval augmented generation, even with the latest advances in the field. I follow this work closely and have been in the industry for a while at advanced research companies.
I don’t mean this as an insult to you specifically, but “in my experience it does a good enough job” is exactly why we’re in this situation.
Article written; Apple Intelligence funny; John Wick discussed.
www.theverge.com
Steve would have tested this, saw it was ****, gotten the technical explanation that “we don’t know when or if it will improve to the point where it won’t make errors” and shelved the damn thing. Instead we all have to suffer for the next few years while the public figures that out and investors and shills make an ass ton of money off of a fad.
History rhymes, anyone skeptical should research expert systems and how they were going to change everything. I’m not saying this as an old person either, I was barely an infant when that was around but I know the history and I know the current technology and have been paid to review thousands of papers in this and adjacent areas.
If anyone wants to argue the point, give me a single example of a peer-reviewed paper written in the last 2 years that covers summarization and how it’s solved for. I’ll gladly wait and appreciate the effort, because I have access to non-public portals and as far as I’ve seen there are exactly zero.