Better queries would include proper timeframing and all LLM-preference-tuning phrases from https://github.com/AlpinDale/gptslop
But even then, I don't think this is the gotcha OP thinks it is: LLM generation and summarizing is a legit tool in the paper writing process, especially for conclusions.
In my academic experience, the paper introduction and conclusion is often written last-minute, close to the submission deadline. While a good intro and conclusion are important for the reader, very little time is made available for it since researchers spend maximal time on expanding material findings and experiments. No wonder that assistive writing tools are used to speed things up. As long as proper post-editing and proof-reading is applied.
The whole point of the original article is that people aren't doing even that.
Plus in an academic context, it's important to acknowledge when parts of the paper are not your own work, especially in cases where the generated summary may not accurately reflect the actual paper. Saying that ChatGPT has been used to generate summaries would allow people to judge if the summary alone can be trusted to represent the content of the paper.
Which already filters after 2023.
Here is an excerpt from one of the results after constraining the search to "after 2020":
Hundreds of young men are crowding them, to prepare for the army and navy, to represent their country in some future war. Certainly here is ample preparation for the patriot of war. But is our country offering an equal opportunity to the one who would serve herin times of peace?
This is similar to the case where a journalist typed "15 year old" on Pornhub search, didn't understand how search works, and didn't look at the results.