Summarization is Sugar

The robot fever seems to be passing as I wrote a piece that at first glance has nothing to do with robots… except it sort'f does. As I was letting the final piece stew, I dropped a venty footnote that talks about a certain demographic that worries me quite a bit—the summarizers.

One of my personal superpowers is that my knowledge is ten miles wide but three inches deep. I am proud of this because it often makes for great first impressions. Did you know honey never spoils? I did! And I know why! Let's discuss this… but not too much.

In my defense, there are topics where my knowledge is 10 miles deep. Let's talk redwoods when you have a chance, and by talk, I do mean "Listen to me describe in excruciating detail how a redwood works." Brace yourself.

The robots are my pals because their knowledge is one million miles wide and quite deep. Hallucinations aside, go and ask your favorite robot about a topic that tickles your fancy and enjoy. Ask for sources, by the way. Check those sources; they like to make those up, too.

My point: Summarization isn't knowledge, it's sugar. It's the delicious, delectable bits of the work that are essential to the piece. Summarization gives you the impression that you understand the piece, but it does not give you understanding. To understand a piece, you need to experience the content as the creator intended: typos, boring parts, and inessential digressions included.

Summarization is an important tool. There's a lot to understand on the planet, but it's not your only move. You, yes you, need to choose when to go deep because going deep is when you understand how to understand.

Oh, I wrote this, too.