I don't care where the content came from. I judged it on its merit not on its origin. If it was a bad summary or more difficult to understand than the article then it wouldn't have worked quite as well. The additional context of it being generated by the [harmful technology in question] made it meta humorous, yes, not least because I found it to be a better representation of the argument that I think the author is attempting to communicate than the form in which it was originally presented. Ultimately, the author's piece sounds more like a stochastic parrot to me than the summary by ChatGPT.
Hence, I find satire an entirely appropriate tactic to spark curious discussion, in this case. It's able to communicate all that remarkably succinctly. And, though we have not discussed whether ChatGPT is harmful because OpenAI paid Kenyan works $2/hr to "clean up" the model, I do believe we have discussed the nature of the argument in the first place, which is whether a LLM can produce anything of value. It seems preposterous to claim that ChatGPT is utterly useless and harmful when a harmless use for it is shoved in your face, no? And since I laughed, I guess I value the output, oddly. Which all quite contradicts the author's assertion that bad evil technology has no value and is destroying humanity.