You would think. I don't know about this paper in particular, but I'm continually surprised about how much more I get out of LLM summaries of papers than the abstracts of papers written by the authors.
Paper abstracts are not optimized by drive-by readers like you and me. They are optimized for active researchers in the field reading their daily arXiv digest that lists all the new papers across the categories they work in, and needing to take the read/don't-read decision for each entry there as efficiently as possible.
If you’ve already decided you’re interested in the paper, then the Introduction and/or Conclusion sections are what you’re looking for.
This would be an interesting metric to track, how different an abstract generated from LLM giving it the paper as source, vs the actual abstract is, and if it has any correlation whatsoever with the overall quality of the paper or not
