Earlier quoted context omitted.
What matters to me is that a human writer has verified the content and is ready to stake their reputation on it being worth my time to read. It sounds like that's what you've done here, in which case I don't feel that you are wasting my time by having me read something that you haven't even reviewed yourself.
It does seem weird for someone to expect others to spend their time fully reading something… when they also have access to the same tools and can just tell it to summarize it back.
That is not what happened here: the author provided a lot more input than the finished article, and used the LLM to help crunch that down to as good a version as possible of the points there wanted to make.