The following is a summarization of your article, which prefaced the email announcing your article. I’ve only been receiving these summarizations of late. I presume they are AI generated. Do you think it accurately summarizes your article?
-Milton
“The author discusses the need for reform in American institutions, comparing Trump’s approach of “moving fast and breaking things” to the “broken windows” theory. While acknowledging the potential for chaos, the author leans towards this approach, believing the status quo is flawed and that captured markets hinder progress. Ultimately, the author suggests that political finesse and negotiation are necessary to avoid physical conflict and maintain a comfortable existence.”
Ick. It sounds both vacuous and authoritative at once. My article has only the lightest reference to the broken windows theory, it alludes a great deal more to Spike Lee's film Do the Right Thing. In that is the inherent passion and anger directed at breaking things because of the Others, the analogy is that populist Republicans are getting back at populist Democrats with the same kind of anger displayed in Spike Lee's Brooklyn where people have forgotten how to be neighborly but would rather be provocative and authoritarian.
The AI also completely misses the point of politics being a process of conniving lies, that 'finesse' in this context has the double meaning because the connotation of finesse means to ingratiate and to 'socialize' a lie and comfortable with chaos. Think the "this is fine" meme. "This is fine" is political.
If I can turn off the summarizations, I will. If I wanted TLDR, I would have made a comic strip. I yet may.
That summary is godawful. Thus proving just how terrible LLMs are at writing. They can extract and extrapolate from basic or highly structured information and seem to be impressively good at this. ("ChatGPT, write me a valid GDRP compliance policy statement." Done.) But as far as refining a think-piece and capturing it's essence...tragic comedy usually ensues.
As far as I know, this isn't a feature of Substack, but there are third party aggregators that profess to offer this...er...disservice.
The following is a summarization of your article, which prefaced the email announcing your article. I’ve only been receiving these summarizations of late. I presume they are AI generated. Do you think it accurately summarizes your article?
-Milton
“The author discusses the need for reform in American institutions, comparing Trump’s approach of “moving fast and breaking things” to the “broken windows” theory. While acknowledging the potential for chaos, the author leans towards this approach, believing the status quo is flawed and that captured markets hinder progress. Ultimately, the author suggests that political finesse and negotiation are necessary to avoid physical conflict and maintain a comfortable existence.”
Ick. It sounds both vacuous and authoritative at once. My article has only the lightest reference to the broken windows theory, it alludes a great deal more to Spike Lee's film Do the Right Thing. In that is the inherent passion and anger directed at breaking things because of the Others, the analogy is that populist Republicans are getting back at populist Democrats with the same kind of anger displayed in Spike Lee's Brooklyn where people have forgotten how to be neighborly but would rather be provocative and authoritarian.
The AI also completely misses the point of politics being a process of conniving lies, that 'finesse' in this context has the double meaning because the connotation of finesse means to ingratiate and to 'socialize' a lie and comfortable with chaos. Think the "this is fine" meme. "This is fine" is political.
If I can turn off the summarizations, I will. If I wanted TLDR, I would have made a comic strip. I yet may.
That summary is godawful. Thus proving just how terrible LLMs are at writing. They can extract and extrapolate from basic or highly structured information and seem to be impressively good at this. ("ChatGPT, write me a valid GDRP compliance policy statement." Done.) But as far as refining a think-piece and capturing it's essence...tragic comedy usually ensues.
As far as I know, this isn't a feature of Substack, but there are third party aggregators that profess to offer this...er...disservice.