That also doesn't really happen right now and I'm not sure a summary is an improvement whoever writes it. You can just run that article through an llm yourself to get a summary - comment threads are useful for discussions with other humans about the content. What's it adding to the conversation? Are you hoping that everyone starts replying to the summary to discuss so it's replies take over to become the discussion for the article? If not, does it just get pushed to the bottom since nobody interacts with it, and then what's the point? It could be nice as a feature but as a comment I'd argue human summaries or AI summaries are pretty much just spam. Because unlike the archive link comments that people post where there's a clear point that it's done and you don't need to post another one - what happens if you don't like the summary? Or if it's controversial and nuanced? Summary wars? I feel even more strongly about that now that I've thought through it - no I wouldn't feel different and would dislike both equally.