Science

It's actually not. Abstracts are targeted at academics or researchers, and oftentime preserve the complexity. Take for example the abstract of the paper this video's about:

Reported here are experiments that show that ribonucleoside triphosphates are converted to polyribonucleic acid when incubated with rock glasses similar to those likely present 4.3–4.4 billion years ago on the Hadean Earth surface, where they were formed by impacts and volcanism. This polyribonucleic acid averages 100–300 nucleotides in length, with a substantial fraction of 3′,-5′-dinucleotide linkages. Chemical analyses, including classical methods that were used to prove the structure of natural RNA, establish a polyribonucleic acid structure for these products. The polyribonucleic acid accumulated and was stable for months, with a synthesis rate of 2 × 10−3 pmoles of triphosphate polymerized each hour per gram of glass (25°C, pH 7.5). These results suggest that polyribonucleotides were available to Hadean environments if triphosphates were. As many proposals are emerging describing how triphosphates might have been made on the Hadean Earth, the process observed here offers an important missing step in models for the prebiotic synthesis of RNA.

While it is less complex than the paper, it is nevertheless dense and jargon endowed. Your average person with a highschool education will either not understand it well or be absolutely turned off by its density. They're also just very unlikely to stumble across it.

I could have the machine reword it, but the information is not comprehensive, which reduces quality. By having the entire paper in its context window, the LLM is less likely to hallucinatinate. Plus the added information helps it make better summaries based on all the paper's sections, importantly the limitation section.