3 ms·
Perhaps it should not? Why would such a silly feature be explained over and over rather than removed?
by andersa 2y ago
Perhaps it should not? Why would such a silly feature be explained over and over rather than removed?
- codr7 2y agoYeah, especially when it changes the meaning in silly ways. My brain spent quite some time trying to figure out what the headline was trying to say.
- codetrotter 2y agoBecause there are a lot of articles in the news that add this word for no reason.
- nandhinianand 2y agoAhhh.. wouldn't that be better by using a percentage of filler words/total words in title threshold?? I don't know if a feature simply strips out the filler words in title, it's not always useful and rather harmful is what I would argue.
- shakna 2y agoHumans work better. HN is small scale enough that a moderator can come along, collapse the off topic comments and fix the title, and it's not an issue.
- DavidMankin 2y agoSeems like title cleanup is a good use for an LLM actually. (Not to remove the human option, but as the first smarter pass instead of simple stopword lists.)
- shakna 2y agoIs it, though? An LLM burns through how much power, compared to the tiny Arc server? You could outsource it, of course... But then you have a third party dependency. Then you have the problem that LLMs continually and constantly change words to be "simpler" and destroy the very sensitive meanings, especially words in tech. Like auto-correcting Fediverse into Universe. Or C into C++.
- candiddevmike 2y agoHN does a lot of title editorializing. Like the one a few days ago that turned the acronym RATs into Rats and completely changed the meaning.