If it can't put an accurate summary, and it can't put the text verbatim, I'd rather it just buggered off I guess. Not much point reading half the story and missing context and critical paragraphs.
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
19 points (95.2% liked)
Australia
3616 readers
92 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Agreed.. full article. We can skim read and choose what time we save.
Ban it.
It's basically a misinformation machine even if it doesn't have an agenda.
Disclaimer is pointless.
I’ve stopped reading them, found the summary to heavily change a story as context was completely removed, especially when political
It has about a 60% usefulness ratio in my opinion but I'd suggest option 2 an auto comment disclaimer that it often leaves relevant stuff out AND to downvote it when the summary isnt useful.
The latter because a) it's a signal to later readers that the summary is misleading and b) if the maintainer is monitoring (prob not) that's a clue as to which summaries need to be looked at
Yeh, agree with approach, seems sensible
This is equivalent to option 4 IMO.
No one will heed the disclaimer. I mean the disclaimer basically means the whole thing is pointless - you need to read the article I'd you want to be sure you're not missing something very important.
Down votes are meaningless. No one will look at the down votes and conclude that in that specific case the summary is unreliable.
ban. A culture of reading the source must be encouraged
If the bot is taking clicks away from the ABC; that's not a good thing.
I like it.
The summaries it provides fall into one of the categories for me:
-
Ignore because I've already read the article
-
The summary is interesting enough that I'll go read the article
-
Ignore, wouldn't have read the article anyway
Overall it's more articles read. Maybe a disclaimer or have it respond to votes or comments of good bot/bad not
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I like it more than hate it and if it's wrong I just close its comment. Tbh if there's no pay wall or some kind of soft wall it should be encouraged for people to read the article rather than assume a bot or OP has represented the news issue in an unbiased way.
I'm more concerned the community doesn't have a YT Piped redirect bot.
I can look into it if it's something that the community can agree will be helpful and not spammy
I like the bot. You just need a common sense approach, and realise it's trimmed a lot of content (which it tells you), and if it feels off, just click the link if the topic interests you.
So you see it as not so much a summary but more of a trailer or sneak-peak at the content?
I've whinged about it.
It's almost random selection of what to include or exclude can heavily slant the summary.
Just like humans. Just like AI. Just like any bot. Maybe I'm a bot. Maybe you're a bot.
We better get used to it, and be able to critically analyse a post rather than concern ourselves with 'who' wrote it.
Keep it and let people decide by themswlves if they wanna read it or the source article. Just add a autocomment disclaimer. Hell its opensource just make ur own ibstance that has the disclaimer. As long as it doesnt have an agenda its errors will balance eachother out on average.