This is kind of a self-defeating argument. If the information is accurate and valuable, why bother with this blog post at all? The papers could speak for themselves.
But a lot of people are of the opinion that for many papers it helps to have a secondary publication where the author puts the work in the appropriate context. I’m trying to build a shared mental model with the author, to help me better understand the underlying work; that is harder to do when there’s no mind behind the words.
Because articles are high level summaries of detailed work. What's self defeating about that?
> that is harder to do when there’s no mind behind the words.
Presumably the author read the text before publish and agreed with the summary. What's the problem exactly?