AI summaries have been common on Reddit for almost a decade now. Where does the problem of "accuracy" come in? They weren't even using LLMs

How does that address the issue? Being common on Reddit (or any social media) isn't evidence of a good idea. It could be just as accurate or inaccurate on Reddit, for years.

> "accuracy"

How could there be scare quotes around accuracy? You question its reality or importance?

Where is there ANY evidence that these summaries aren't accurate? Until you produce it, it's as substantial as ghosts and evil spirits.

The burden of proof is the reverse, in any field of knowledge it's on the person making the claim. I could make up anything in the world (and many people do); it's the requirement for support that separates truth from fiction, science from fraud, fact from misinformation. You can't publish a scientific paper without evidence, and say 'it's true until someone proves otherwise'; it's false until you prove it. Same in a courtroom or anywhere else.

Until there is sufficient evidence that the summary is accurate, there's no reason to believe that it is.

fwiw, all caps is against HN guidelines. I'm mentioning it because there seems to be a rash of it this week.

> The burden of proof is the reverse, in any field of knowledge it's on the person making the claim.

You made an unprovoked claim of inaccuracy based on what?

The universal, clever retort! Let's agree then that nothing is demonstrated without sufficient evidence.