Point 4 in the example summaries is quite relevant for this function:<p>Is learning 'knowing' what an article said having read a summary?<p>If a reader decides it is not [and this is a point aside from whether the summary's accurate], or not sufficient, and desires to read more, what more information has been provided by a GPT-summary that could not be provided by a headline in the first place?<p>If it's not provided in the headline, are headline writers missing a trick so much so that GPT-summaries are needed?<p>If a headline's not sufficient space, why can't articles provide an abstract/summary that makes this redundant?<p>I feel these are increasingly pressing questions for writers and publishers that don't want to be summarised out of content and context.