You wrote a low quality summary of a low quality secondary-source video of no particular importance by a talking head whose expertise has little to do with AI (nor is regarded as such like a Gary Marcus)

You're right that I was probably exaggerating when I said it was the best effort I could provide. It was more like what I expected would be considered a basic, accurate summary I could generate in a brief period of time. 

low quality secondary-source video of no particular importance by a talking head whose expertise has little to do with AI (nor is regarded as such like a Gary Marcus)

That the source itself is not considered to be of particularly significant quality or importance makes sense given that my post is only lightly downvoted relative to the number of votes it has received. While of course her expertise isn't that relevant to AI, the fact that she has expertise in a sufficiently technical field seemed to me relevant to clarify to indicate she shouldn't be strongly suspected to present the information based on a wild misunderstanding. I wasn't aware that Gary Marcus has previously criticized the quality of her coverage of these sort of issues, or whatnot, so I'll keep in mind for the future she shouldn't be regarded as a reliable source. 

That she, or anyone else, might apparently be a "talking head whose expertise has little to do with AI" doesn't by itself seem like it'd be a strong argument against taking the person seriously as a source, relative to the standards on LW, given that the same could be said of many whose contributions are frequently well-received on LW. Similar criticisms have frequently been leveled at Eliezer Yudkowsky, or could be at Scott Alexander. I'd be unmoved by many such criticisms for the same reason as anyone else, though that criticism of others who've for longer been well-received on LW could be warranted. There are also many with expertise in AI who among rationalists are often dismissed as talking heads.

where you added no original information or thought, and failed to follow up on basic details, like failing to name or link the study in the final item

I wasn't aware that additional info or analysis/commentary beyond the contents of the source was expected. Anyone could follow up on basic details as easily as I could if they were curious to learn even more, and I'm technically not obliged to do so myself, though I'm also not entitled to be well received even if I don't bother citing other sources, so that seems fair enough others would be nonplussed by that. 

I do not think you really have to ask why your post is not being upvoted to the skies.

I agree, which is why I didn't. I asked why it was being downvoted.

(despite praising your own "effort" repeatedly)

I didn't praise my effort but mentioned that I put in any. I didn't mean to use the word effort in any exaggerated sense. There's no need to diminish it as though it's not technically true. If someone takes two minutes to brush their teeth, I'd consider to say they put in two minutes of effort is as appropriate a way to describe that as any other. 

If you are spending a lot of "effort" on posts like this and you are upset by the reception

I wasn't as upset by the reaction but more frustrated that nobody before had bothered before explaining why it was mostly receiving downvotes. I was aware the post might be banal, though it also seemed innocuous enough, that I didn't expect it to be mostly downvoted either, as though it somehow particularly subtracts from the quality of content on LW. I now understand better the reasons why, so thanks for explaining.

I mentioned above:

I'm just hoping you can offer insight into whether I should keep bothering with the effort of posts like this because I'm the one who's off here, or others just have superficial reactions. 

You've offered enough that I understand that the answer to my own question is that it was mostly the former--that I was the one who was off--so I'm satisfied by this response. 

I peruse her content occasionally but I wasn't aware that she is widely recognized as the quality of her analysis/commentary varying so wildly, and often particularly lacklustre outside of her own field. Gwern mentioned that Gary Marcus has apparently said as much in the past when it comes to her coverage of AI topics. I'll refrain from citing her as a source in the future.