The problem highlighted here is that AI summaries misrepresent the original stories. This just opens a flood gate of slop that is 45% worse than the source, which wasn't stellar to begin with as you point out.
A whole lot of news is regurgiated wire service reports, so how reporters do matters greatly - if they're doing badly, then it's entirely possible that an AI summary of the wire service releases would be an improvement (probably not, but without a baseline we don't know)
It's also not clear if humans do better when consuming either, and whether the effect of an AI summary, even with substantial issues, is to make the human reading them better or worse informed.
E.g. if it helps a person digest more material by getting more focused reports, it's entirely possible that flawed summaries would still in aggregate lead to a better understanding of a subject.
On its own, this article is just pure sensationalism.
