It’s actually not. Abstracts are targeted at academics or researchers, and oftentime preserve the complexity. Take for example the abstract of the paper this video’s about:

Reported here are experiments that show that ribonucleoside triphosphates are converted to polyribonucleic acid when incubated with rock glasses similar to those likely present 4.3–4.4 billion years ago on the Hadean Earth surface, where they were formed by impacts and volcanism. This polyribonucleic acid averages 100–300 nucleotides in length, with a substantial fraction of 3′,-5′-dinucleotide linkages. Chemical analyses, including classical methods that were used to prove the structure of natural RNA, establish a polyribonucleic acid structure for these products. The polyribonucleic acid accumulated and was stable for months, with a synthesis rate of 2 × 10−3 pmoles of triphosphate polymerized each hour per gram of glass (25°C, pH 7.5). These results suggest that polyribonucleotides were available to Hadean environments if triphosphates were. As many proposals are emerging describing how triphosphates might have been made on the Hadean Earth, the process observed here offers an important missing step in models for the prebiotic synthesis of RNA.

While it is less complex than the paper, it is nevertheless dense and jargon endowed. Your average person with a highschool education will either not understand it well or be absolutely turned off by its density. They’re also just very unlikely to stumble across it.

I could have the machine reword it, but the information is not comprehensive, which reduces quality. By having the entire paper in its context window, the LLM is less likely to hallucinatinate. Plus the added information helps it make better summaries based on all the paper’s sections, importantly the limitation section.

Ich bin ein Ausländer wer versteht das nicht. Ist es lustig oder etwas?

AI doesn’t necessitate a machine even being capable of stringing the complex English language into a series of steps towards something pointless and unattainable. That in itself is remarkable, however naive it may be in believing you that a foldable phone can be inflated. You may be confusing AI for AGI, which is when the intelligence and reasoning level is at or slightly greater than humans.

The only real requirement for AI is that a machine take actions in an intelligent manner. Web search engines, dynamic traffic lights, and Chess bots all qualify as AI, despite none of them being able to tell you rubbish in proper English

It actually is artificial intelligence. What are you even arguing against man?

Machine learning is a subset of AI and neural networks are a subset of machine learning. Saying an LLM (based on neutral networks for prediction) isn’t AI because you don’t like it is like saying rock and roll isn’t music

Test did not work. Disregard those saying it did