Sure, but someone else did this for me, using AI, I found it useful to scan in the moment. I appreciated it and upvoted it.

Like that experience, this was meant as a scannable introduction to the topic, not an exact reference. Happy to hear altenative views, or downvote to give herding-style feedback.

Had I done a short AI-generated summary, it would have been a bit less helpful, but there wouldn't have been downvotes.

Had I linked instead of posted the same AI explanation, there would have been no or fewer downvotes, because many wouldn't click, and some of those that did would find it helpful.

Had I linked to something else, many would not click and read without a summary, both of which could have been AI-created.

I chose to move on and accept a few downvotes. The votes count less than the helpfulness to me. Votes don't mean it helps or doesn't. Many people accept confusion without seeking clarification, and appreciate a little help.

Although I personally do tend to downvote content-free unhelpful Reddit-style comments, I'm not overly fond of trying to massage things to help people manage their feelings when posts are only information, with no framing or opinion content. I understand that there is value in downvotes as herding-style feedback (as PG has pointed out). Yes, I've read the HN guidelines.

I think beyond herding-style feedback downvotes, AI info has become a bit socially unacceptable—okay to talk about it but not share it. But I find AI particularly useful as an initial look at information about a domain, though not trustworthy as a detailed source. I appreciate the footnotes that Perplexity provides for this kind of usage that let me begin checking for accurate details.