No interest in such a product of any kind.
For example, every patent is 50 or 100 pages of what amounts to bland, unreadable background. The stuff that is actually new in the world is usually a tiny fraction of all the words.
In a world where everyone's AI can generate all those extra words, their value goes down. (Yes, this is bad news for people in my line of work who get paid to write all those words.) So maybe the profession moves in a direction that values conciseness and brevity, to re-add value to what the lawyers and agents do, that the AI can't do.
It's a fantasy. But the same kind of thing applies to academic publishing. Maybe the future of publishing is very short, useful documents with rich, tiered, AI-generated hyperlinks on every word.
I hope I'm wrong. Eventually, when only AI produces and consumes text, it could be more brief, but at that point will it matter? Eventually a less ambiguous format could be used, something more like code, that computers and AI can consume and apply.
I don't feel that jargon, legalese and newspeak are going to vanish. On the contrary, the value of these words may actually increase due to the appeal that they possess by way of gesturing toward authority, virtue and the like. There is a likelihood that AI will only contribute to their proliferation, just in the same terse manner that you are describing. Densely packed compositions of inarticulate gobbledygook that serves none, yet is served by many.
We are on the cusp of a fissure in the field of knowledge work led by AI tools. I'm inclined toward the more manual labor that favors a dextrous approach to "information overload" but there are opportunities to leverage these tools as a sort of valve for copious amounts of information as well. The technology isn't going to go anywhere, so hopefully this is Elicit is a useful product that will serve the interest of the conscientious.
I don't understand that. If people bother to generate those words when they're expensive to write, why would they stop when they become cheap?
My contention (that I see some people don't like!) is that they don't have much value, regardless of who writes them.
My hope is that AI will cause the patent legal community to undergo a paradigm shift and place value on conciseness and brevity.
In the US, this would require Congressional and judicial buy-in. LOL!!!
Notice that I used the word "fantasy" above.
It does not matter whether a human or an AI produces a high-signal synthesis from a lower-signal body of work. The signal boost is value creation.
The underlying debate is whether AI is capable of signal-boosting arbitrary works more effectively than humans. I'd say presently, it is not. Even with the most powerful models, consistency and reliability across work types and lengths are far from business-grade.
If that were to change, the fact that an AI boosts the signal does not globally deflate the value of text. The value of text is determined by the signal, not the signal producer.
The main issue right now is that AI is not reliably boosting information signals, and therefore, most serious professionals probably still prefer to read original works.