{"id":520,"date":"2026-07-20T18:41:50","date_gmt":"2026-07-20T17:41:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/psychological-sciences\/?p=520"},"modified":"2026-07-20T19:42:19","modified_gmt":"2026-07-20T18:42:19","slug":"when-ai-tried-to-summarise-my-writing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/psychological-sciences\/when-ai-tried-to-summarise-my-writing\/","title":{"rendered":"When AI tried to summarise my writing (and why I’m disabling AI overviews more)."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Miles Thompson<\/a><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We know that debates around AI and the university are here to stay. In a much more zoomed in conversation, this blog centres around an interesting experience I had with \u201cAI overviews\u201d. This experience made me think about their use and potential misuse more generally, especially how busy students might respond to them. This blog also highlights: i. a recent Radio 4 programme on AI and UK universities and ii. a new report on the environmental sustainability of AI in post-16 education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Artificial University<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Beginning with the broader issue, earlier this month, Radio 4 broadcast a programme called \u201cThe Artificial University\u201d, presented by Dr Kathryn Claire Higgins<\/a> (Goldsmiths). She spoke about the challenges of balancing AI and the purposes of the university. Within this large debate, one thread really struck me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today\u2019s students were described as juggling other responsibilities, with worries about debts, future jobs and earnings. It echoes research I have published about students generally (link 1<\/a>, link 2<\/a>). Against this backdrop, AI was seen as a tool students might use either willingly or because they worry they will be left behind if they aren\u2019t using it. There was a fear, from some, of using AI incorrectly, and of being accused of academic misconduct. As a result, some students now build up portfolios of proof that their work is done by them and not AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The programme was a really interesting listen and is available on BBC Sounds<\/a>. On a parallel but different track, this blog focuses in on how AI overviews might sometimes close down rather than open up avenues of enquiry for students and others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When AI tried to summarise my research<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In short, I was trying to confirm whether a doi (digital object identifier<\/a>) was working correctly on a recently published output (answer: it wasn\u2019t, but is now). During the process, I put the full title of the article, in quotations marks, into google (\u201cA conversation with ourselves: reflecting on our professions, the systems we work in and our roles within it\u201d<\/em>). The article is currently paywalled on the publisher\u2019s website (here<\/a>), but the author accepted manuscript can be accessed by anyone, including AI, through my institution\u2019s workplace repository here<\/a>. At the top of the search results, an AI overview presented what appeared to be a summary of the work I wrote with my co-author, and I was taken aback by what I saw.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article is a reflective piece, aimed at clinical and counselling psychologists working in the NHS and\/or people seeking to do the same in the future. The piece attempts to contextualise and present some statements reflecting critical debates, hopefully providing the basis for further discussions. The statements are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n