Help me validate this idea I am working on

It really depends on how you define the word value.

For me personally I think this is a garbage idea and it's so similar to all of the other people who pass themselves off as content creators when in reality they are content repackagers. The internet is flooded with this trash there is so little actual new interesting information compared to the repackaged trash that is thrown out there. It used to be when people would repackage this stuff they could apply their own personalized unique perspective but now running it through chat GPT there is no personalized unique perspective to it. It's regurgitated summarized trash. Almost always I would rather see the original article if it is something interesting to me then someone's garbage summary whose only purpose is for engagement.

This was always the problem with 24-hour news channels that people complained about in the beginning. Of course only as old people can remember those days. The idea that there's not enough engaging news to fill a 24-hour channel so they have four hours of actual engaging news throughout the day and 20 hours of people talking about the actual news.

So really this is about how you personally define value. Does this provide value in the sense that it is new information or provides an interesting and unique perspective on something? That answer has to be an absolute no because it's regurgitated automated trash. Does it provide value in the sense that it drives engagements and clicks and increases your clout and perhaps monetary resources, maybe.

Once you decide what value means to you don't need the answer of hacker News.