It may give me a summary good enough that I don't have to buy the book, since it read the book. If there are any parts that aren't detailed enough for me, I can ask them to be expanded.

If you're telling me that's not "infringing," you should follow what up with the argument for why it is not.

Lots of websites will give you summaries of books and they never get sued for that, let alone lose.

If you ask the LLM for the summary to be expanded much, and you're not providing it with a fresh copy of the book to reference, it's going to be wrong.

> It may give me a summary good enough that I don't have to buy the book, since it read the book.

There are a lot of Wikipedia articles with summaries good enough "to not have to buy the book", because they were written by people who read the book. Should those be taken down?