i gotta say, this AutoTL:DR seems kind of…bad. “she tells NPR” is a pronoun attached to person that is not named elsewhere in the TLDR. Maybe Beehaw should look into banning this one? I’m not sure how to offer feedback to the bot’s author.
I think it’s to be expected and excusable. When reading the summary with it in mind, that it’s a bot summary, not a human summary, it’s acceptable and still useful. Text is not necessarily coherent. And when it isn’t, it can indicate other content.
I read a different autosummary earlier today with a similar issue. It referred to something or someone not previously mentioned in the summary. With auto-summarization in mind, it was obvious that there is more information on that in the full article. In a way, that was also useful in and of itself (instead of simple emission).
Dunno why asking whether to ban. Are others even better? None logically understand the text. If most are coherent, this may be an outlier. If machine summarization is not good enough for someone they don’t have to read it.
i bring it up because there was a discussion at some point about whether beehaw as a whole should allow bots. I think the agreement was that some users still find them helpful. I’m just questioning if that is still the case, as the summary doesn’t strike me as particularly useful. But if others disagree, then i have no beef with it.
i gotta say, this AutoTL:DR seems kind of…bad. “she tells NPR” is a pronoun attached to person that is not named elsewhere in the TLDR. Maybe Beehaw should look into banning this one? I’m not sure how to offer feedback to the bot’s author.
@rikudou@lemmings.world is the contact point for this bot - you could reach out if they don’t respond to being tagged
I think it’s to be expected and excusable. When reading the summary with it in mind, that it’s a bot summary, not a human summary, it’s acceptable and still useful. Text is not necessarily coherent. And when it isn’t, it can indicate other content.
I read a different autosummary earlier today with a similar issue. It referred to something or someone not previously mentioned in the summary. With auto-summarization in mind, it was obvious that there is more information on that in the full article. In a way, that was also useful in and of itself (instead of simple emission).
Dunno why asking whether to ban. Are others even better? None logically understand the text. If most are coherent, this may be an outlier. If machine summarization is not good enough for someone they don’t have to read it.
i bring it up because there was a discussion at some point about whether beehaw as a whole should allow bots. I think the agreement was that some users still find them helpful. I’m just questioning if that is still the case, as the summary doesn’t strike me as particularly useful. But if others disagree, then i have no beef with it.