That doesn’t add useful content. It adds definitions. That’s just padding.

Only the interviewee can add content.

I’m also of the opinion “I asked ChatGPT for a summary” type comments are very low effort and don’t add to the discussion.

> don't add to the discussion

For sure, I'm against it as well, it's just that in this case the transcription provided in the article was so terse that it was more or less useless. LLMs are good at expanding it to make more sense as prose. If you open the link, that is what the prompt asks it do as well. I'd argue that's useful and not just padding.

> Add content

Yes, I mentioned this in my original comment "not the why" "surface level" etc

Unfortunately our AI future involves many more people refusing to use their brains for more than a few seconds and depend on AI to generate summaries without knowing what parts are hallucinated or even the point.

Or, they read the transcription, didn't have time to see the video interview, and used an LLM to augment it to make sense as prose as an aid to the casual reader. I know a fair bit about the topic at hand:) but not enough to be gung-ho about it on a tech forum frequented by legends.

If you actually went through the LLM output, found problems with it, and then commented this, it would be fine. Until then it's an unfounded accusation.

If they want to use an LLM, they can. I don’t see what posting it adds.

"If people want to read an article, they can search for it themselves. I don't see what posting it here adds"