5 ms·

Summarized bullshit is still bullshit akin to a polished turd. Given that the choice of which articles to write is incredibly biased to begin with this approac

Summarized bullshit is still bullshit akin to a polished turd. Given that the choice of which articles to write is incredibly biased to begin with this approach does not seem effective. What could theoretically work is an “AI news agency” that “summarizes” many different sources to generate unbiased articles.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
> Given that the choice of which articles to write is incredibly biased to begin with this approach does not seem effective. Selection bias is a given. You always have to keep that in mind. But when you actually want to read a specific article, summarizers are useful. For news and general population content, debullshitifiers could come in handy too. Point being, the texts are not random. There's some nugget of valuable content in it, but it's usually wrapped by enormous layer of SEO, ad hooks, word count padding, and/or general nonsense. Reducing signal-to-noise ratio here - stripping all those layers of bullshit - is strictly useful.
- haldujai 3y ago
  I’m not arguing summarization is not useful, or stripping the various sources of noise you listed. “Debullshitification” reads as de-biasing which is not what you just itemized. My point is rather that Fox News+LLM (as an example) is still biased but would appear/may be incorrectly presented as unbiased to a reader not acutely aware of selection bias which is probably not something an average reader is well informed about.
  - KyeRussell 3y ago
    No, you’re applying a specific meaning to an inherently nebulous term, debullshitification. And honestly, I immediately knew what that meant when I read it. My preferred news source, which isn’t horrendously partisan, still has…exactly what I’d call bullshit. If that’s removed, I’ll get more bang for my buck in reading it, and that both provides immense value, and something that I’d call “debullshitification”, whilst working purely from the articles provided.
    - haldujai 3y ago
      Since you mentioned nebulous, this is the Oxford definition: > verb: bullshit; 3rd person present: bullshits; past tense: bullshitted; past participle: bullshitted; gerund or present participle: bullshitting > talk nonsense to (someone), typically to be misleading or deceptive. It’s reasonable to interpret debullshitification as removing bias (i.e. what is misleading or deceptive in the news article) in this context rather than the “fluff” listed. As I stated in the comment you replied to, GP has a different definition and I agreed removing fluff definitely has value.
      - froggit 3y ago
        It's reasonable to interpret debullshitification as "removing bullshit." Specifically, "the reverse process of bullshitification." Speaking nonsense, misleading, and deceiving aren't the same as "adding bias." They're just techniques that can be used to do so.
tourmalinetaco 3y ago
>What could theoretically work is an “AI news agency” that “summarizes” many different sources to generate unbiased articles. NewsMinimalist does this, it’s quite interesting. I’ve been using it since its introduction, and its been a fun way to get lots of summarized, de-sensationalized headlines. Specifically I enjoy setting it to 6.0 and reading the headlines that have impact that didn’t quite reach the 6.5+ threshold. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35795388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35795388
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Another great idea though also very US centric like the app in this post. Hopefully this comes to more places
pessimizer 3y ago
It's like trying to make Chinese food using McDonald's Happy Meals for ingredients.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  They have McDonald's in China (at least in Shenzhen) - if you were to take ingredients from there, this may actually work.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

> Given that the choice of which articles to write is incredibly biased to begin with this approach does not seem effective. Selection bias is a given. You always have to keep that in mind. But when you actually want to read a specific article, summarizers are useful. For news and general population content, debullshitifiers could come in handy too. Point being, the texts are not random. There's some nugget of valuable content in it, but it's usually wrapped by enormous layer of SEO, ad hooks, word count padding, and/or general nonsense. Reducing signal-to-noise ratio here - stripping all those layers of bullshit - is strictly useful.

haldujai 3y ago
I’m not arguing summarization is not useful, or stripping the various sources of noise you listed. “Debullshitification” reads as de-biasing which is not what you just itemized. My point is rather that Fox News+LLM (as an example) is still biased but would appear/may be incorrectly presented as unbiased to a reader not acutely aware of selection bias which is probably not something an average reader is well informed about.
- KyeRussell 3y ago
  No, you’re applying a specific meaning to an inherently nebulous term, debullshitification. And honestly, I immediately knew what that meant when I read it. My preferred news source, which isn’t horrendously partisan, still has…exactly what I’d call bullshit. If that’s removed, I’ll get more bang for my buck in reading it, and that both provides immense value, and something that I’d call “debullshitification”, whilst working purely from the articles provided.
  - haldujai 3y ago
    Since you mentioned nebulous, this is the Oxford definition: > verb: bullshit; 3rd person present: bullshits; past tense: bullshitted; past participle: bullshitted; gerund or present participle: bullshitting > talk nonsense to (someone), typically to be misleading or deceptive. It’s reasonable to interpret debullshitification as removing bias (i.e. what is misleading or deceptive in the news article) in this context rather than the “fluff” listed. As I stated in the comment you replied to, GP has a different definition and I agreed removing fluff definitely has value.
    - froggit 3y ago
      It's reasonable to interpret debullshitification as "removing bullshit." Specifically, "the reverse process of bullshitification." Speaking nonsense, misleading, and deceiving aren't the same as "adding bias." They're just techniques that can be used to do so.

tourmalinetaco 3y ago

>What could theoretically work is an “AI news agency” that “summarizes” many different sources to generate unbiased articles. NewsMinimalist does this, it’s quite interesting. I’ve been using it since its introduction, and its been a fun way to get lots of summarized, de-sensationalized headlines. Specifically I enjoy setting it to 6.0 and reading the headlines that have impact that didn’t quite reach the 6.5+ threshold. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35795388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35795388

wkat4242 3y ago
Another great idea though also very US centric like the app in this post. Hopefully this comes to more places

pessimizer 3y ago

It's like trying to make Chinese food using McDonald's Happy Meals for ingredients.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
They have McDonald's in China (at least in Shenzhen) - if you were to take ingredients from there, this may actually work.