The proliferation of AI-generated writing is increasingly producing large volumes of unreadable text, according to an essay by Colin Breck. Breck observes a pattern where individuals use AI to generate extensive design proposals, business plans, and meeting summaries, often at the expense of original thought and meaningful communication.
The Pitfalls of AI Summarization and the Loss of Contextual Depth
A significant issue identified is the use of AI to retrospectively summarize work already completed. This practice often results in documents that lack context, perspective, and the intent to build consensus, serving instead as detailed but "inhuman" machine summaries. In professional settings, this extends to pull request summaries and meeting notes that provide technical detail without addressing the underlying value, urgency, or required human input.
The impact on readers is substantial. Survey results cited in the essay indicate that 78% of readers stop reading if they perceive an article is AI-authored, and 71% avoid the author in the future. This "revolt of the reader" suggests that the tendency to use LLMs to avoid the labor of writing may inadvertently break the social contract between writer and reader.
While AI can serve as a powerful editor for checking grammar, spelling, or technical citations, Breck warns against substituting the writing process itself with AI output. Relying on AI for summarization risks preventing individuals from building complex mental models, potentially leading to a "loss of attention to detail" and a shallower understanding of complex systems.
Sources
- I don't want to read what you didn't write （Hacker News Frontpage, 2026-09-21）
- Resist Summary