Even the tldr bot forwards such a heavy bias into the delivery of this information, I couldn't even get through it without eye-rolling. I'd like to receive the info, and then be allowed to think for myself.
This isn't journalism - it's a thirsty-for-validation, one-sided take on this topic. This proposal may not be viable in a vacuum, but there may be some interesting ideas that can be taken from it, when the reader isn't being spoonfed the psyche of an author that clearly wants you to agree with them. Like I said - I'd rather either hear both sides fairly, or get the info without it already dripping with the stank of another person's very negative opinion. Whether or not you agree with me, as long as you're thinking for yourself, you're doing it right.
Edited first sentence for clarity.
I agree with you that the article isnβt neutral but I feel like after that dumbfuck manifesto, no one should have to treat anyone at Andreeson Horowitz seriously again.
The tldr bot is pulling directly from the article - it used to use ChatGPT wayy back when it was originally created, but it got expensive for the creator, so now I believe it uses some sentence interpreter library to compare relevance of paragraphs, in combination with semantic HTML tags/markup.
The code for it is on GitHub
I almost wish our bots would remove bias, unless it's some kind of persuasive essay. I'm sure there are some out there.
And to be clear, I'm blaming the author, not the bot. It's just forwarding the sentiment of the author, albeit more succinctly.
Removing things is not sufficient for removing bias. Omission is a kind of bias. You can lie by cherry-picking just some of the truth and skipping the rest
I agree here entirely.
The article is pretty much at fault here, as far as the bot is concerned if garbage goes in, garbage comes out
Even the tldr bot forwards such a heavy bias into the delivery of this information, I couldn't even get through it without eye-rolling. I'd like to receive the info, and then be allowed to think for myself.
This isn't journalism - it's a thirsty-for-validation, one-sided take on this topic. This proposal may not be viable in a vacuum, but there may be some interesting ideas that can be taken from it, when the reader isn't being spoonfed the psyche of an author that clearly wants you to agree with them. Like I said - I'd rather either hear both sides fairly, or get the info without it already dripping with the stank of another person's very negative opinion. Whether or not you agree with me, as long as you're thinking for yourself, you're doing it right.
Edited first sentence for clarity.
I agree with you that the article isnβt neutral but I feel like after that dumbfuck manifesto, no one should have to treat anyone at Andreeson Horowitz seriously again.
The tldr bot is pulling directly from the article - it used to use ChatGPT wayy back when it was originally created, but it got expensive for the creator, so now I believe it uses some sentence interpreter library to compare relevance of paragraphs, in combination with semantic HTML tags/markup.
The code for it is on GitHub
I almost wish our bots would remove bias, unless it's some kind of persuasive essay. I'm sure there are some out there.
And to be clear, I'm blaming the author, not the bot. It's just forwarding the sentiment of the author, albeit more succinctly.
Removing things is not sufficient for removing bias. Omission is a kind of bias. You can lie by cherry-picking just some of the truth and skipping the rest
I agree here entirely.
The article is pretty much at fault here, as far as the bot is concerned if garbage goes in, garbage comes out
"I'm a bot, not a miracle worker"