Designing Content for AI Summaries: A Practical Guide for Communicators

There’s a certain irony in admitting this, but I recently struggled to write the introduction to one of my blog posts, “Agent vs Agency in GenAI Adoption: Framing Ethical Governance.” I wanted to frame the topic with a reflection on evolving terminology, a nod to Hamlet, and a meditation on AI’s “nature.” On top of that, I introduced the idea of the “ghost in the machine” only a few paragraphs later. In hindsight, I had written two introductions to the same post without meaning to.

At the time, the ideas felt connected. But when I later ran those paragraphs through an AI summarizer, the summary focused almost entirely on Hamlet’s moral dilemma and the mind–body problem—interesting concepts, certainly, but hardly the point of the post. The AI confidently reported that the blog was “about comparing the adoption of GenAI to Hamlet’s struggle with death.”

Not exactly the message I intended.

To be fair here, the most recent version of Google’s Gemini gave me a much more comprehensive summary. That summary mentions, as I did, “the tensions inherent in adopting Generative AI” and my proposed “governance framework.”

But looking back, I realize I had made two classic mistakes in writing that introduction—mistakes that human readers can forgive with patience but AI summarizers absolutely cannot. First, I opened with a metaphor instead of a clear point. Second, I layered multiple conceptual frameworks (terminology, nature vs. nurture, Hamlet, Koestler, agency) before stating my purpose. I know better. Many of us do. But as I’ve written elsewhere, expertise doesn’t exempt us from the structural pitfalls that now matter more than ever.

That experience became the seed of this post.

If our writing can be so easily misinterpreted by a summarizer—and thus by downstream readers who rely on that summary—then it’s worth rethinking what it means to write clearly and responsibly in an AI-influenced world. Good writing has always been about serving our readers. Now, increasingly, it must also serve the machine readers that bridge the gap between our content and those readers.

In this post, I explore why AI summarizers can distort meaning, how machines “read” what we write, and how we can design content that preserves accuracy, nuance, and intent—even after it’s digested by AI. (Note: Some content in this blog post was generated by ChatGPT.)

Read more

Safeguarding Content Quality Against AI “Slop”

We are privileged these days to be able to roll our eyes still at fakery created by generative AI. Think of the blurred hands and misaligned clothes in the Princess of Wales’ infamous 2024 Mother’s Day family photo. More recent and brazen examples exist in fake citations included in some lawyers’ depositions and even in the first version of the U.S. government’s 2025 MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) report.

But we likely won’t have that easy eye-roll privilege for long.

The recent iterations of generative AI models, such as ChatGPT 4o, Claude 4, and Google’s Gemini, include even more sophisticated reasoning and huge context windows—thousands of times the size of the original ChatGPT release. Generally, the longer the context window, “the better the model is able to perform,” according to quiq.com.

As I mentioned in my most recent blog post (“Leveling an Editorial Eye on AI”), the omnipresence of AI has the capability—and now the model power—to compound inaccurate information (and misinformation) a thousand-fold, collapsing in on itself. This endangers the whole concept of truth in our modern society, warns my colleague Noz Urbina.

Given this capability, what are reasonable steps an individual, an organization, and the content profession as a whole can take to guard against even the subtlest “AI slop”?

Read more

Thistle-Tomes

The following are my 2024 short takes on all things content in life and work:

  1. No one is an expert on AI yet. Take everything with a grain of salt.
  2. Sustainability should be part of every content strategy and content project.
  3. Lack of specificity on websites can be both a friend and an enemy. Vagueness can leave room for negotiation but also misinterpretation.
  4. Jargon in customer-facing content can be a significant barrier to understanding and engagement.
  5. Something I like to call “name theory” says that what you call something matters. And it doesn’t have to rhyme with “oom.”
Read more

Neurodivergence and Content Design: The Migraine Edition

Designing online content sensitive to user differences has been our responsibility for at least 20 years – in the U.S., since the advent of Section 508 requirements. During that time, our awareness of inclusivity has evolved to include (pun intended) neurodiversity, a term coined in the 1990s by Judy Singer.

Nick Walker, Ph.D., defines “neurodivergent” folks as having “a mind that functions in ways which diverge significantly from the dominant societal standards of ‘normal.’” (See her helpful blog post “Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms & Definitions.”)

The mind functions differently. That definition encompasses folks with dyslexia, autism, dyscalculia, ADHD, anxiety, and a neurological injury. It also includes me, a person with migraine disorder. Or it should.

Read more