I do not need summaries, I need commentaries and insight
I have written a few review papers and chapters in books, and even edited a volume, and although this is a lot of work, the main issue is not providing a summary of existing work. That is comparatively easy. After all, even first-year students manage that quite well. Providing insight and commentaries is another matter entirely. In the volume I edited I could easily have written summaries of loads of papers for the chapters I chose not to write myself, even before the advent of Google Scholar. What I needed was experts in those fields not in my core field of expertise to provide insights, contrasting the outcomes and opinions found in different papers. While I am not suggesting AI will never be able to do that, it cannot do so now, or at least, not in a meaningful way. Likewise, well-written papers have a kind of coherent storyline, which makes them readable and ideally even memorable. Until AI knows how to keep the reader entertained (even in a scientific book), I do not fear their competition.
My only worry is that students will start using them as automatic essay-writing tools, and I have to read loads of terminally dull papers that actually do escape the vigil of the plagiarism scanner, but are still not their own work.