3 ms·

To be clear, Emergent Mind isn't writing actual news articles. At least not yet :). When a link is shared on the site either by Emma (a bot) or a human, Emerge

by matt1 4y ago

To be clear, Emergent Mind isn't writing actual news articles. At least not yet :). When a link is shared on the site either by Emma (a bot) or a human, Emergent Mind uses GPT to automatically write a short summary of the article's content and explain key terms used in the article. I don't proofread those summaries or key terms before they're posted, but do occasionally edit them if something is glaringly wrong - which thankfully isn't common.

enumjorge 4y ago
How do you know when to edit something gloriously wrong if you don’t proofread them?
- matt1 4y ago
  I use Emergent Mind throughout the day to stay informed about AI news, so sometimes notice issues while I'm reading the site. I was just saying that I don't proofread any summaries before Emma writes them, nor do I feel like I have to verify everything. Mistakes in the summaries and key terms are few and far between.
greyman 4y ago
Yes, by article I meant that summary and key terms, mostly the summary. Somehow, I just don't have much luck with it, I once asked ChatGPT to give me a summary of a book which I have read, and it provided 5 points, which is correct since the book indeed has 5 main principles (it was Getting things done book), but 2 out of 5 were just incorrect. So in my opinion, the correct workflow would be that AI will generate the summary, or several summaries, and then a human will read the original article and use those generated summaries as a template to write it himself. Otherwise, you could just unintentionally mislead people. With that being said, I actually like what you come up with so far.
- visarga 4y ago
  Or, you know, being 2023, you can ask GPT to do a better job. So in the first step you generate a summary with GPT as usual, and in the second step it gets analysed by GPT and a new summary is written. You can declare your criteria for what makes a good summary in the second step.

by matt1 4y ago

enumjorge 4y ago

How do you know when to edit something gloriously wrong if you don’t proofread them?

matt1 4y ago
I use Emergent Mind throughout the day to stay informed about AI news, so sometimes notice issues while I'm reading the site. I was just saying that I don't proofread any summaries before Emma writes them, nor do I feel like I have to verify everything. Mistakes in the summaries and key terms are few and far between.

greyman 4y ago

Yes, by article I meant that summary and key terms, mostly the summary. Somehow, I just don't have much luck with it, I once asked ChatGPT to give me a summary of a book which I have read, and it provided 5 points, which is correct since the book indeed has 5 main principles (it was Getting things done book), but 2 out of 5 were just incorrect. So in my opinion, the correct workflow would be that AI will generate the summary, or several summaries, and then a human will read the original article and use those generated summaries as a template to write it himself. Otherwise, you could just unintentionally mislead people. With that being said, I actually like what you come up with so far.

visarga 4y ago
Or, you know, being 2023, you can ask GPT to do a better job. So in the first step you generate a summary with GPT as usual, and in the second step it gets analysed by GPT and a new summary is written. You can declare your criteria for what makes a good summary in the second step.