Personally, I distrust chatgpt like the plague. It's visceral. More "argumentative", I see several biases:
- A summary is necessarily made by a character, so there's interpretation (toning down this point, exaggerating that one). So unless we say that our character is the AI's, it doesn't add up.
- Or maybe it's a "neutral" summary, not by a character but by the player. But in that case, you'll have to reread the one done by the AI, because it's far from neutral. The neutrality of AIs is a well-documented myth. This is particularly true here, with the emphasis placed on end-of-event trivia and the arrival of Nilstilar (sorry, it's nothing against you ;) ), which take up as much space as the serious discussions at the start.
- A summary is necessarily made by a character, so there's interpretation (toning down this point, exaggerating that one). So unless we say that our character is the AI's, it doesn't add up.
- Or maybe it's a "neutral" summary, not by a character but by the player. But in that case, you'll have to reread the one done by the AI, because it's far from neutral. The neutrality of AIs is a well-documented myth. This is particularly true here, with the emphasis placed on end-of-event trivia and the arrival of Nilstilar (sorry, it's nothing against you ;) ), which take up as much space as the serious discussions at the start.